4^ 


4 


<*?  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  *>> 


Presented  by  Mr.  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


Agneiv  Coll.  on  Baptism,  No. 


S65 

/03:l 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/baptismitsnature03ross 


BAPTISM: 


ITS 


NATURE,  OBLIGATION,  MODE,  SUBJECTS, 
AND  BENEFITS. 


BY 


L.   ROSSER,  A.M. 

OF    THE    VIRGINIA   ANNUAL    CONFERENCB. 


FOURTH  EDITION. 


RICHMOND,  VA: 

PUBLISHED   BY  THE  AUTHOR. 

1854. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1853,  by 

L.  ROSSER, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Eastern  District  of  Virginia. 


8TEREOTYFED  BT  L.  JOHXSOW  AND  CO. 
PHILADELPHIA. 


PRINTED  BY  SMITH  &   PETERS, 

Franklin  Buildings,  Sixth  Street,  below  Arch, 

Philadelphia. 


/ 


PREFACE. 


The  fruitful  causes  of  division  in  the  Christian 
Church  originate  in  the  disposition  of  weak  and  selfish 
man  to  increase  or  lessen,  modify  or  do  away,  the 
conditions  and  requisitions  of  salvation,  positively 
enjoined  or  plainly  implied  in  the  Bible.  Out  of  the 
old  Jewish  vail,  rent  from  top  to  bottom  by  Christ 
himself,  some  fragment  is  often  reserved,  and  devoted 
to  sectarian  purposes.  The  middle  wall  of  partition, 
long  since  broken  down,  is  rebuilt  upon  the  very 
authority  by  which  it  was  overthrown,  and  to  secure 
the  very  ends  which  its  prostration  was  designed  to 
prevent.  The  pure  fire  of  heavenly  love,  kindled  by 
Christ  to  burn  for  ever  on  the  altar  of  his  sanctuary, 
struggles  amid  the  impure  vapours  of  religious  con- 
tention, till  often  it  finally  expires,  and  in  its  place 
flashes  up  the  sickly  light  of  sectarian  fervor — a 
strange  fire,  destructive  alike  to  the  church  and  the 
world — the  cause  of  grief  and  reproach  to  the  one, 
and  of  contempt  and  triumph  to  the  other.  In  vain 
may  the  church  weep  over  her  fallen  altars,  broken 
harps,  rent  robes — her  failures,  misfortunes,  and  fre- 
quent defeats — her  want  of  spiritual  influence — her 
sad  declensions  in  charity,  in  zeal,  in  spiritual  life,  in 


PREFACE. 


pious -activity,  and  the  spirit  of  unity: — she  weeps  over 
her  own  work — she  furnishes  both  the  occasions  and 
weapons  of  attack — she  invites  the  insult  offered  to 
her  majesty,  purity,  and  gentleness — she  is  the  cause 
of  her  own  misfortunes — the  mournful  victim  of  her 
own  arrogance  and  imprudence. 

How  much  of  uncharitableness  might  be  prevented, 
and  how  extensively  the  spirit  of  Christian  fellowship 
might  be  promoted,  in  the  various  branches  of  orthodox 
Christianity,  by  practically  observing  the  invariable 
truth,  that  the  unity  of  the  church,  in  all  ages,  de- 
pends upon  the  identity  of  the  doctrines  and  conditions 
of  salvation,  and  unity  of  love,  and  not  upon  a  mere 
uniformity  in  ceremony,  practice,  and  opinion,  which, 
from  time  to  time,  may  be  adopted,  and  which  are  as 
mutable  as  the  manners  and  customs  of  men!  The 
"Act  of  Uniformity,"  passed  in  England,  in  1661-2, 
obliging  all  the  clergy  to  subscribe  the  Thirty-nine  Arti- 
cles, and  use  the  same  forms  of  worship,  caused  upward 
of  two  thousand  ministers  to  quit  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land— which  was  indeed  a  usurpation  of  power  over 
man's  religious  nature,  and  a  violation  of  the  spirit  of 
the  gospel;  and  yet  these  very  ministers  regarded 
their  own  regulations,  and  differences  of  opinion  in 
religious  matters,  as  just  causes  of  divisions  among 
themselves,  and  exclusiveness  toward  each  other — an 
example,  alas,  lamentable  in  its  influence  in  our  own 
country!  If  our  Christian  principles  and  experience 
are  founded  on  the  sweet,  simple,  and  gentle  laws  of 
the  gospel,  framed  as  they  are  by  infinite  wisdom, 
universal  in  their  sanction,  boundless  in  the  range  of 
their  blessings,  written  in  the  blood  of  their  meek  and 


PREFACE. 


compassionate  Author,  and  designed  to  unite  mankind 
in  the  bonds  of  peace  on  earth,  preparatory  to  com- 
munion in  heaven,  why  should  we  regard,  with  scrupu- 
lous tenacity,  mere  difference  in  external  rites  and 
ceremonies  as  an  insurmountable  barrier  to  unity  and 
fellowship  on  earth  ?  Can  we  not  be  in  spirit  on  earth 
what  we  shall  be  in  heaven?  Are  not  those  principles 
which  are  sufficient  to  secure  eternal  salvation  in 
heaven,  sufficient  ta  secure  a  catholic  spirit  and  com- 
munion of  saints  on  earth?  If  we  believe  they  are 
not,  then  let  us  never  offer  up  a  prayer  again  on  the 
principle  contained  in  the  admirable  form  of  prayer 
prescribed  by  our  Saviour — "Thy  will  be  done  on 
earth,  as  it  is  done  in  heaven."  Are  not  the  same 
principles  which  were  able  to  preserve  the  church  in 
the  bonds  of  peace  and  the  unity  of  the  spirit,  in  the 
days  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  sufficient  to  preserve 
the  church  in  the  same  unity  and  communion,  in  all 
ages  of  time  ?  What  other  means  to  protect,  or  what 
other  chart  to  guide,  do  we  need,  in  addition  to  those 
which  the  apostolic  church  possessed  ?  Do  not  union, 
prosperity,  and  stability  depend  upon  the  same  great 
fundamental  principles  and  necessary  things  now,  as 
then  were  required?  "We  say  necessary — from  which 
man  can  no  more  take  any  part,  and  to  which  he  can 
no  more  add  any  thing,  than  he  can  affect  the  necessary 
being  of  God  himself. 

It  is  surprising  and  affecting,  that  any  difference  of 
opinion  ever  should  have  arisen  in  the  church  on  the 
subject  of  Baptism ;  and  yet  there  never  was  a  subject, 
respecting  which  so  great  a  diversity  of  opinion  has 

unnecessarily  existed  among  pious  men  as  that  of  Bap- 

1* 


6  PREFACE. 


tism — a  diversity  of  opinion  that  has  been  productive 
of  nothing  but  injury  to  the  church.  Some  consider 
it  invested  with  indispensable  importance,  others  with 
no  importance — some  place  all  the  importance  in  the 
mode  and  subjects,  and  none  in  the  thing  signified — 
some  consider  it  a  Jewish  prejudice  or  pagan  super- 
stition, while  others  solemnly  regard  it  as  a  Christian 
ordinance  or  sacrament,  and  place  all  the  importance 
in  the  subjects  and  signification,  and  none  in  the  mode. 
Regarding  the  mode  as  non-essential,  and  the  subjects 
and  signification  only  as  important,  with  an  humble 
confidence  in  Divine  Providence,  we  commit  the  follow- 
ing volume  to  its  destiny. 

Fkedericksbubg,  March  17th,  1853. 


■ 

TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


nun 
Preface 3 

Introduction „ 11 


PART  I. 

NATURE  AND  OBLIGATION  OF  BAPTISM. 

Chap.  I.  Nature  of  Baptism. 

1.  It  is  a  solemn  and  public  profession  of  faith  in  the 

Trinity 19 

2.  It  is  expressive  of  adoption  into  the  family  of  God....  20 

3.  It  is  expressive  of  spiritual  union  with  the  Son 20 

4.  It  is  expressive  of  regeneration  by  the  Spirit 20 

5.  It  is  expressive  of  renunciation  of  the  world 21 

6.  It  is  expressive  of  spiritual  union  among  Christians  21 

7.  It  is  expressive  of  hope  of  a  future  resurrection 22 

8.  It  sets  forth  the  doctrine  of  original  sin   and  free 

grace 22 

Obligation  of  Baptism. 

1.  Founded  upon  the  command  of  Christ 23 

2.  Founded  upon  the  practice  of  the  Apostles 23 

II.  Circumstances  Essential  to  the  Validity  of  Baptism. 

1.  The  proper  administrator 25 

2.  The  proper  form 26 

3.  The  proper  subjects 27 

4.  The  proper  element 27 

5.  The  proper  mode 27 

7 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 


PART  II. 

THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

Chap.  I.  The  Mode  of  Baptism  Inferential. 

page 

1.  From  the  English  Scriptures 30 

2.  From  the  original  Greek  word  /?arrri£<o,  baptizo 33 

II.       3.  From  the  original  Greek  prepositions , 76 

III.       4.  From  the  harmonious  connection  of  the  mode  with  tho 

known  circumstances  of  spiritual  baptism,  &c 88 

IV.       5.  From  the  circumstantial  nature  of  the  institutions  of 

Christianity . 99 

V.      6.  Collateral  proofs. 

(1.)  That  mode  most  proper  which  is  of  universal  appli- 
cation   109 

(2.)  That  mode  most  proper  which  best  comports  with 

devotion , 109 

(3.)  Immersion,  in  the  case  of  females,  indelicate 110 

(4.)  The  difficulty  in  certain  cases  in  Scripture  avoided, 
upon  presumption  that  sprinkling  or  pouring  was 
practised 113 

(5.)  Disposition  of  the  Baptists  to  make  a  new  transla- 
tion of  /3airT%(0 131 

(6.)  Disposition  of  the  Baptists  to  destroy  the  analogy 
existing  between  the  Baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  external  Baptism 133 

VI.  Unfairness  of  the  Baptists. 

(7.)  Nearly  the  whole  Christian  church,  from  the  days 
of  the  Apostles  to  the  present  time,  has  practised 
sprinkling  and  pouring,  and  opposed  exclusive  im- 
mersion   133 

(8.)  Evangelical    paedobaptist   churches    crowned    with 

signal  success  in  publishing  the  Gospel 157 

VII.  Objections  Considered. 

1.  Baptism  is  a  positive  institution 158 


TABLE   OP   CONTENTS.  9 

PAGE 

2.  Since  John  is  found  at  Jordan,  the  inference  is,  that 

he  baptized  by  immersion. 159 

3.  Why  did  the  apostles  baptize  in  the  open  air,  and  at 

the  water's  edge,  where  was  much  water? 162 

4.  Where  reference  is  made  to  the  operations  of  the 

Holy  -Spirit,  under  the  ideas  of  sprinkling   and 
pouring,  the  meaning  is  figurative 162 

5.  Immersion  is  set  forth  under  the  figure  of  a  burial....  163 

6.  Obligation  to  be  immersed  is  based  on  example  of 

Christ 171 

7.  Immersion  at  the  hands  of  an  administrator  who  has 

not  been  immersed,  is  not  .valid  Baptism 183 

8.  Sprinkling  was  substituted  for  immersion  by  the  As- 

sembly of  Divines  at  Westminster,   in  1643,  by 

a  majority  of  one , 200 

9.  Immersion  is  Baptism,  and  hence  it  is  absurd  to  talk 

of  mode  of  Baptism 202 

10.  There  is  no  cross  in  sprinkling 203 

11.  The  popular  sophistry  of  the  Baptists 205 


PART  III. 

INFANT  BAPTISM. 
Chap.  I.  The  Ground  of  Infant  Baptism 211 

II.  In  all  Covenants  of  God  made  with  Man,  Infants 

HAVE  BEEN  INCLUDED 225 

III.  The  Christian  Church  the  continuation  of  the  Old 

Testament  Church 227 

IV.  The  New  Testament  in  Harmony  with  the  Doctrine 

of  Infant  Baptism 259 

V.  The  Scriptural  Argument  continued  :  Oihos — Oihia....  287 

VI.  The  Silence  of  Scripture,  <tc 300 

VII.  Collateral  Proofs  of  Infant  Baptism 306 


10  TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 


PART  IV. 

OBJECTIONS  TO  INFANT  BAPTISM  CONSIDERED. 

PAGE 

Chap.  I.  Infant  Baptism  an  Innovation 326 

II.  History  of  Opposition  to  Infant  Baptism: 336 

II.  Other  Objections  Considered 352 

TV.  Collateral  Objections  Considered 368 

PART  V. 

BENEFITS  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM,  AND  THE  DEDICATION  OF 

INFANTS  IN  BAPTISM  A  SOLEMN  DUTY. 

Chap.  I.  Benefits  of  Infant  Baptism 397 

II.  Dedication  of  Infants  in  Baptism  a  Solemn  Duty 409 

III.  Conclusion 415 

Index  of  Scripture  Texts 419 

General  Index 423 


%  v 


BAPTISM. 


Preparatory  to  the  consideration  of  Baptism,  it  is  im- 
portant that  we  give  a  brief  explanation  of  the  nature  of 
the  Sacraments. 

The  essential  characteristics  of  a  sacrament  are  six  in 
number,  namely:  it  must  be  divine  in  its  institution,  sig- 
nificative in  its  meaning,  appropriate  in  its  nature,  connected 
with  the  church,  universal  in  its  application,*  and  obligatory 
till  repealed.  A  rite  having  these  marks,  designated  by  God, 
properly  becomes  the  formal  sensible  seal  of  the  covenant 
of  salvation  under  any  dispensation  of  divine  grace.  And 
thus  a  sacrament  may  be  placed  in  natural  things,  by  which, 
in  a  moral  sense,  they  become  different  from  what  they  were 
in  a  natural  sense — their  natural  character  being  in  no  re- 
spect changed — only  a  moral  sense  is  superadded.  For  ex- 
ample, the  tree  of  life  was  a  pledge  of  immortality  to  Adam 
while  he  observed  faithfully  the  divine  law — not  that  the 
tree  was  invested  with  the  elements  of  incorruption,  by 
which  immortality  could  be  secured  to  Adam,  but  because 

*  That  is,  not  inconsistent  with  climate,  sickness,  age,  or  any  laws 
of  nature,  or  circumstances  of  divine  providence. 

11 


12  INTRODUCTION. 


it  was  designated  by  God  as  the  seal  of  his  covenant.  And 
so,  the  "  bow  set  in  the  cloud"  is  a  sign  to  man  that  there 
shall  "  no  more  be  a  flood  to  destroy  the  earth" — not  that 
the  rainbow  possesses  any  philosophical  efficacy  to  prevent  a 
second  deluge,  but  that  it  has  been  selected  by  God  as  the 
most  prominent,  impressive,  sensible  seal  of  his  covenant 
with  Xoah  and  his  posterity — a  natural  phenomenon  con- 
spicuous upon  the  retreat  of  the  storm,  as  the  encouraging 
sign  that  God  is  ever  mindful  of  his  covenant.  The  rain- 
bow is  the  same  now  that  it  was  when  it  spanned  the  heavens 
before  the  flood ;  it  never  can  have  any  thing  added  to  its 
natural  state,  unless  natural  laws  be  modified ;  but  as  a  sign 
appointed  by  God,  it  possesses  a  value  which  it  never  had 
before  the  deluge.  For  the  same  reason,  silver  coin  stamped 
with  a  public  impression  acquires  a  new  valuation,  though  it 
is  changed  in  no  respect  in  its  natural  state.  Calvin  ob- 
serves, "  Even  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  whenever 
God  gave  to  the  holy  fathers  any  sign,  it  is  well  known  to 
have  been  inseparably  connected  with  some  doctrine,  without 
which  our  senses  would  only  be  astonished  with  the  mere  view 
of  it." *  Thus  all  the  sensible  signs  of  the  Jewish  economy 
were  connected  severally  with  some  prominent  doctrine, 
either  to  be  believed  or  practised.  And  so  Baptism  is  con- 
nected with  all  the  prominent  doctrines  of  the  Christian 
dispensation,  and,  as  an  outward  seal,  instituted  and  enjoined 
by  God,  it  is  invested  with  all  the  meaning  and  authority  of 
a  seal  in  its  common  acceptation.  Again,  Calvin  defines  a 
sacrament  to  be  "an  assistance  and  support  of  faith — an 
outward  sign  by  which  the  Lord  seals  in  our  consciences  the 
promises  of  his  good-will  toward  us,  to  support  the  weakness 
of  our  faith ;  and  we  on  our  part  testify  our  piety  to  him,  in 
his  presence,  and  that  of  angels,  as  well  as  before  men." 

1  Insts.  b.  iv.  c.  xiv.  sec.  4. 


INTRODUCTION.  13 


After  the  same  form  is  the  definition  of  a  sacrament  given 
in  our  Discipline  :  "  Sacraments  ordained  of  Christ  are  not 
only  badges  or  tokens  of  Christian  men's  profession,  but 
rather  they  are  certain  signs  of  grace,  and  God's  good-will 
toward  us,  by  the  which  he  doth  invisibly  work  in  us,  and 
doth  not  only  quicken,  but  also  strengthen  and  confirm  our 
faith  in  him.,,fi 

The  explanation  of  the  origin  of  that  undue  importance 
which  is  attached  to  the  sacraments  by  certain  sects,  is  to  be 
found  in  the  manner  adopted  by  the  ancient  Fathers,  in 
translating  the  original  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  into 
the  Latin  language.  Thus,  the  Greek  word  /luffrrjptov,  mys- 
terion, wherever  it  refers  to  divine  things,  the  Fathers  ren- 
dered by  the  word  sacr amentum,  and  not  arcanum,  lest  they 
should  seem  to  degrade  the  dignity  of  the  subject.  In  pro- 
cess of  time,  the  term  sacramentum,  which  was  originally 
only  a  sign  of  spiritual  things,  came  to  be  applied  as  an  in- 
dispensable means  and  condition  of  spiritual  things.  Sacra- 
mentum was  confounded  with  mysterion — the  sacrament  was 
identified  with  the  mystery — that  is,  in  the  sacrament  the 
mystery  was  supposed  to  be  hid  or  concealed ;  so  that  he 
who  did  not  submit  himself  to  the  sacrament,  it  was  con- 
cluded, could  never  understand  the  mystery  of  spiritual 
things — never  experience  regenerating  grace.  By  referring 
to  the  Latin  translation  of  the  following  scriptures,  the 
origin  of  this  confusion  may  be  discovered  :  "  Having  made 
known  to  us  the  mystery — mysterion — of  his  will ;"  3  mys- 
terion is  translated  sacramentum.  "If  ye  have  heard  of 
the  dispensation  of  the  grace  of  God  which  is  given  me  to 
you-ward ;  how  that  by  revelation  he  made  known  unto  me 
the — mysterion — mystery/'  translated  sacramentum*  "The 
mysterion — mystery,  which  he  had  hid  from  ages,"  trans- 


2  Dis.  art.  xvi.  3  Eph.  i.  9.  4  Eph.  iii.  3. 

2 


14  INTRODUCTION. 


lated  sacramentum.5  On  the  other  hand,  the  Latins  so 
effectually  confounded  the  meaning  of  sacramentum  with 
that  of  mysterion,  that  the  Greeks  themselves  denominated 
the  sacraments  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  mysteries, 
according  to  their  idea  of  the  proper  sense  of  mysterion.  To 
this  misapplication  of  the  term  sacramentum,  is  to  be  ascribed 
the  pernicious  error  of  baptismal  regeneration.  Moreover, 
as  man  is  composed  of  sense  and  spirit,  Christ  has  wisely 
adapted  the  sacraments  to  his  complex  nature ;  for  the  sacra- 
ments are  sensible  symbols,  not  only  of  invisible  spiritual 
communion  with  God,  but  of  spiritual  communion  and  fel- 
lowship with  saints.  Failing  to  discriminate  between  the  out- 
ward sensible  character  of  Baptism  and  its  inward  spiritual 
meaning,  either  too  much  or  too  little  importance  has  been 
given  to  baptism.  As  extremes  are  found  in  individual  cha- 
racters, so  extremes  are  often  found  in  individual  churches. 
On  the  subject  of  baptism,  the  Baptist  church  has  taken  one 
extreme,  namely,  a  specific  mode,  while  the  Bomish  church, 
the  Church  of  England,  the  Puseyites,  and  the  Campbellites, 
have  taken  the  other  extreme,  namely,  spiritual  purification 
or  regeneration.  The  ideas  of  mode  and  purification,  it  is 
true,  are  both  contained  in  baptism,  the  former  necessarily, 
and  the  latter  symbolically;  but  the  Baptists  err  in  restricting 
mode  exclusively  to  immersion,  and  the  Bomish  church  and 
its  offshoots,  in  sinking  the  ceremonial,  emblematical  sense 
of  baptism  into  the  spiritual,  and  in  investing  the  rite  with 
a  spiritual  energy  to  destroy  sin  and  communicate  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

After  a  careful  examination  of  standard  authorities,  we 
have  been  enabled  to  present  to  the  general  reader  the  follow- 
ing analysis  of  opinion  on  the  subject  of  baptismal  regene- 
ration.    The  Bomish  church,  at  an  early  age,  arrogantly 

s  Col.  u  27. 


INTRODUCTION.  15 


assumed  that  baptism,  ex  opere  op>erato,  from  the  ftork 
wrought  or  performance  of  the  act,  in  all  cases,  non  paneii* 
tibus  obicem  mortalis  peccati,  who  do  not  oppose  the  obstacl* 
of  mortal  sin,  confers  regenerating  grace.  On  the  othe; 
hand,  many  continental  Reformers  assumed  that  baptism  war 
a  mere  sign,  merum  signum.  In  the  Church  of  England 
arose  several  parties,  namely,  those  who  maintain  that  "elect 
infants' ;  only  are  regenerated  in  baptism;  those  who  main- 
tain that  those  infants  only  are  regenerated  in  whom  "  future 
repentance  and  faith  are  foreseen  by  God;"  those  who  main- 
tain that  those  infants  only  are  regenerated  in  whom  aa  seed, 
or  principle,  or  habit,  or  spiritual  bias  is  implanted  in  the 
heart;"  those  who  maintain  that  those  infants  only  are 
regenerated  in  baptism,  "one  of  whose  parents  (really  or  at 
any  rate  nominally)  is  believing;"  those  who  maintain  that 
those  infants  only  are  regenerated  whose  "parents  make 
vicarious  pledges  at  the  time  of  baptism ;"  those  who  main- 
tain "that  the  full  baptismal  blessing  is  not  conferred  in 
any  case  of  infant  baptism,  but  a  proportionate  influence 
only  is  bestowed ;"  those  who  maintain — the  High-Church 
party  in  the  Church  of  England,  the  Tractarian  or  Puseyite 
party,  the  school  of  Laud  and  Montague  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  reign  of  James  I.,  and  the  High-Church  party  in 
America — that  regeneration  universally  accompanies  baptism. 
The  original  compilers  of  the  Baptismal  Services  in  the 
Church  of  England  were  Calvinists ;  and  hence,  the  dogma 
of  baptismal  regeneration  in  the  case  of  "  elect  infants"  was 
adopted.  The  Tractarian  party,  or  High-Church  in  England 
and  America,  interpret  the  Baptismal  Services  as  the  Romish 
church  does.  All  these  parties  may  be  classed  under  two 
general  divisions :  first,  those  who  maintain  that  God,  in 
the  case  of  all  infants,  has  positively  tied  or  connected 
spiritual  regeneration  with  baptism,  and  in  all  cases  of  adult 
baptism,  in  which  no  impediment  of  mortal  sin  is  placed  in 


16  INTRODUCTION. 


the  way,  spiritual  regeneration  is  conferred — this  is  the  first 
class.  The  second  class  maintain  that  regeneration  is  not 
so  tied  or  connected  with  baptism,  either  in  the  case  of  the 
infant  or  the  adult,  but  depends  upon  the  conditions  which 
we  have  mentioned.  And  yet  both  classes  agree  in  one 
thing,  which  is,  that  spiritual  regeneration,  in  the  case  of 
both  infant  and  adult,  is  conferred  in  baptism — thoy  differ 
only  in  opinion  as  to  the  extent  of  the  blessing,  and  the  con- 
ditions upon  which  it  is  bestowed.  It  is  easy  to  see  how 
these  errors  all  originated  in  confounding,  as  we  have  already 
stated,  the  thing  signified  with  the  sacramental  sign  and 
seal. 

There  was,  among  the  old  Reformers  and  in  the  Church 
of  England,  another  party,  who  maintained  what  we  regard 
the  proper  view  of  baptism ;  and  this  view  is  still  maintained 
by  the  Low-Church  in  England  and  America,  and  by  other 
Protestant  churches.  It  will  be  the  object  of  the  first  part 
of  this  work  to  show,  that  baptism  is  enjoined  in  the  Scrip- 
tures merely  as  a  sacrament,  in  the  sense  we  have  defined, 
and  that  no  specific  mode  is  enjoined  in  its  religious  usage. 

In  order  to  see  the  appropriateness  of  the  meaning  we 
propose  to  give  farther  to  baptism,  it  is  necessary  to  consider 
for  a  moment  the  history  of  the  gradual  development  of  the 
plan  of  redemption.  As  soon  as  Adam  violated  the  law  of 
works  under  which  he  had  been  placed  in  original  perfec- 
tion, God  was  under  legal  necessity,  either  at  once  to  inflict 
the  threatened  and  destructive  penalty  incurred,  or  in  mercy 
to  provide  a  proper  and  just  method  of  recovery.  Such  a 
method  was  the  plan  of  redemption,  through  the  sacrifice  of 
the  Son  of  God.  The  full  development  of  this  method  is 
to  be  gradually  made  by  many  introductory  measures,  as  in 
the  revolutions  of  time  the  necessities  of  man  shall  require. 

A  few  centuries  after  the  fall  of  man,  in  the  application 
of  measures  to  instruct  and  reform  the  posterity  of  Adam, 


INTRODUCTION.  17 


the  corrupt  and  incorrigible  world  is  overwhelmed  in  the 
Deluge.  Soon  after  the  Deluge,  the  descendants  of  Noah 
desire  to  establish  a  permanent  association  that  shall  ulti- 
mately embrace  the  whole  earth,  which,  should  they  succeed, 
must  render  the  contagion  of  moral  corruption  the  more 
rapid  in  its  diffusion,  and  the  force  of  wicked  example  the 
more  energetic  and  obstinate  in  its  results.  To  prevent 
these  consequences,  language  is  confounded  and  the  human 
race  is  dispersed  over  the  earth.  Soon  after  this  dispersion, 
idolatry  becomes  the  general  sin;  and  to  check  this  evil, 
Abraham  is  called,  the  worship  of  the  true  Grod  set  up,  the 
Mosaic  dispensation  introduced,  and  a  peculiar  people,  the 
Jews,  are  hereby  preserved  from  the  general  sin ;  and  hence, 
in  part,  we  have  the  explanation  of  the  design  of  circunici- 
sion  under  the  Jewish  dispensation.  But  the  Jewish  dis- 
pensation— designed  to  preserve  the  worship  of  the  true  Grod 
and  to  prepare  the  world  for  the  coming  of  Christ — being 
insufficient  to  reform  the  human  race,  Christ,  the  promised 
Messiah,  at  length  appears,  and,  in  his  incarnation,  life,  and 
death  he  develops,  consummates,  and  publishes  to  the  world 
the  great  principles  of  the  plan  of  redemption  under  the 
form  of  the  Christian  dispensation.  The  Christian  dispen- 
sation is  spiritual  and  final — all  others,  in  one  form  or  other, 
to  a  great  extent  were  sensible  and  preparatory.  Hence,  the 
Christian  dispensation  is  called  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit. 
But  how  is  man  to  be  formally  initiated  into  the  church 
under  the  Christian  dispensation?  By  baptism.  And  why 
by  baptism?  Because,  first,  the  services  of  the  Christian 
dispensation  are  pure  and  spiritual ;  secondly,  because  the 
Sacrifice  upon  which  it  is  founded  is  holy  and  spiritual; 
thirdly,  because  the  agent,  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  applies  that 
sacrifice,  is  pure  and  spiritual ;  fourthly,  because  the  condi- 
tion of  salvation  is  faith,  pure  and  spiritual ;  fifthly,  because 
the  effects  that  follow  in  the  heart  and  life  of  the  believer 

2* 


18  INTRODUCTION. 


are  pure  and  holy :  in  a  word,  because  the  Christian  dispen- 
sation contains  all  the  spiritual  blessings  and  doctrines  requi- 
site for  the  recovery  and  salvation  of  man — all  of  which 
water  baptism,  as  a  sign  and  seal,  sets  forth  and  expresses 
more  significantly  than  any  thing  else  can  do.  And  thus 
the  baptism  of  water  is  divinely  instituted  as  the  proper 
initiatory  sacrament  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  under  the 
Christian  dispensation. 

Hence  the  propriety  of  John's  baptism,  as  preparatory  to 
a  profession  of  Christianity.  "John  verily  baptized  with 
the  baptism  of  repentance,  saying  unto  the  people,  that  they 
should  believe  on  him  who  should  come,  that  is,  on  Christ 
Jesus" 6 — the  Founder  of  the  Christian  dispensation  of  the 
grace  of  God.  The  Apostle  Paul,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians — one  of  the  first  churches  founded  under  the  Christian 
dispensation — thus  unfolds  the  nature  of  baptism  :  "  For  as 
many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ  have  put  on 
Christ.  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither 
bond  nor  free,  there  is  neither  male  nor  female  :  for  ye  are 
all  one  in  Christ."  7  That  is,  By  baptism  ye  have  been  form- 
ally initiated  into  the  church  under  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion, and  thus  publicly  ye  have  made  a  profession  of  Chris- 
tianity in  contradistinction  to  Judaism.  aAnd  if  ye  be 
Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according 
to  the  promise."  8  And  so  Peter,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
urges  the  Jews  to  "repent,"  and  be  "baptized  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  :"  9  that  is,  Renounce  your  sins,  relinquish 
your  Jewish  prejudices,  believe  in  Christ,  and  be  initiated 
by  baptism  into  the  Christian  church.  Such  is  the  general 
nature  of  baptism;  but  as  it  embraces  many  important  par- 
ticulars, we  shall  proceed,  without  further  delay,  to  the  spe- 
cial consideration  of  the  subject  of  this  treatise. 

6  Acts  xix.  4.        ?  Gal.  iii.  27,  28         8  Gal.  iii.  29.        9  Acts  ii.  38. 


itatar*  anir  ©Mfpt&tt  jrf  §agfoni 


CHAPTER  I. 

NATURE   AND   OBLIGATION   OF   BAPTISM. 

Water  baptism  is  the  outward  sign  of  the  inward  seal  to 
all  the  covenanted  mercies  of  God,  embraced  in  the  atone- 
ment of  Christ,  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  ichether 
obtained  conditionally  or  unconditionally — conditionally  as 
it  respects  adults,  and  unconditionally  as  it  respects  infants. 
Thus,  it  becomes  the  means  of  formal  initiation  into  the 
church,  under  the  Christian  dispensation.  It  embraces  also, 
a  solemn,  public,  and  practical  profession  of  Christianity, 
and  hence,  it  is  essentially  designed  to  distinguish  the  church 
from  the  world. 

As  the  initiatory  sacrament  of  the  Christian  dispensation, 
it  implies  faith  in  all  the  doctrines  which  it  contains,  obedi- 
ence to  all  the  precepts  which  it  enjoins,  the  discharge  of  all 
the  duties  which  it  imposes,  and  a  title  to  all  the  blessings 
which  it  promises :  it  relates  to  onr  faith,  to  our  practice,  to 
our  hopes,  to  our  obligations,  and  to  God's  faithfulness. 

1.  It  solemnly  and  publicly  expresses  our  faith  in  the 
Trinity.  "Co  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."1 

i  Matt,  xxriii.  19. 

19 


20  NATURE   OP   BAPTISM. 


2.  It  is  expressive  of  our  adoption  into  the  family  of  God. 
"For  ye  are  all  the  children  of  God,  by  faith  in  Christ 
Jesus.  For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into 
Christ,  hare  put  on  Christ.  There  is  neither  Jew  nor 
Greek,  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free,  there  is  neither  male 
nor  female :  for  ye  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus ;  and  if  ye  be 
Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according 
to  the  promise/' 9 

3.  It  is  expressive  of  spiritual  union  with  the  Son. 
"Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into 
Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death?  Therefore  we  are 
buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death;  that  like  as  Christ 
was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father, 
even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life.  For  if  we 
have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  we 
shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection.  Knowing 
this,  that  our  old  man  is  crucified  with  him,  that  the  body 
of  sin  might  be  destroyed,  that  henceforth  we  should  not 
serve  sin.  For  he  that  is  dead  is  freed  from  sin.  Now  if 
we  be  dead  with  Christ,  we  believe  that  we  shall  also  live 
with  him ;  knowing  that  Christ,  being  raised  from  the  dead, 
dieth  no  more;  death  hath  no  more  dominion  over  him. 
For  in  that  he  died,  he  died  unto  sin  once;  but  in  that  he 
liveth,  he  liveth  unto  God.  Likewise  reckon  ye  also  your- 
selves to  be  dead  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto  God  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord." 3 

4.  It  is  expressive  of  regeneration  by  the  Spirit.  "Jesus 
answered,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  Except  a  man  be 
born  of  water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God.  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh; 
and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit.  Marvel  not 
that  I  said  unto  thee,  Ye  must  be  born  again." 4     Baptism 

2  Gal.  iii.  26-29.  3  Rom.  vi.  3-11.  <  John  iii.  5-7. 


NATURE    OF   BAPTISM.  21 


is  emblematical  of  that  inward,  spiritual  change,  which  is  of 
the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  hence  baptism  cannot 
be  sustained  as  any  part  of  the  condition  of  the  new 
birth.  That  is,  the  sacrament  of  baptism  cannot  be  the  con- 
dition of  that  which  it  signifies  as  already  existing.  If  bap- 
tism is  the  condition  of  regeneration,  then  faith  is  not;  if 
faith  is  the  condition  of  this  change,  then  baptism  is  not; 
or  if  both  faith  and  baptism  are  the  condition,  then  baptism 
loses  its  significative  character,  since  it  cannot  properly 
signify  that  of  which  it  is  the  essential  condition. 

Baptism,  therefore,  in  the  above  text,  is  to  be  regarded 
as  emblematical,  and  not  conditional,  of  the  new  birth. 

5.  It  is  expressive  of  renunciation  of  the  world.  It  is 
designed  to  remind  us,  through  all  subsequent  life,  of  the 
sacred  vows  and  obligations  assumed  in  baptism.  Thus,  the 
Apostle  Paul,  in  writing  to  the  churches  at  Rome,  Corinth, 
and  Colosse,  refers  to  their  baptism  for  this  purpose. 
"  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into 
Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death?  Therefore  we 
are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death;  that  like  as 
Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life."5 
It  is  to  be  lamented,  that  the  sacraments  have  so  little  in- 
fluence on  our  lives. 

6.  It  is  the  visible  expression  of  spiritual  union  among 
Christians.  u  I  therefore,  the  prisoner  of  the  Lord,  beseech 
you,  that  ye  walk  worthy  of  the  vocation  wherewith  ye  are 
called,  with  all  lowliness  and  meekness,  with  long-suffering, 
forbearing  one  another  in  love,  endeavoring  to  keep  the 
unity  of  the  Spirit,  in  the  bond  of  peaee.  There  is  one 
body,  and  one  spirit,  even  as  ye  are  ealled  in  one  hope  of 
your   calling;    one   Lord,  one   faith,  one   baptism."6     An 

*  Bom  vi.  3-5.  6  Eph.  iv.  1-5. 


22  NATURE    OF    BAPTISM. 


indispensable  characteristic  of  baptism  is,  that  it  connects 
with  the  church.  The  design  of  the  sacraments  is  "to  keep 
Christ's  worshippers  and  servants  in  one  faith,  and  in  the 
confession  of  the  same."  "For,"  to  use  the  language  of 
Augustine,  "men  cannot  be  united  in  the  profession  of 
religion,  whether  true  or  false,  unless  they  are  connected  by 
some  communion  of  visible  signs  or  sacraments."7  And 
again,  "Baptism  also  serves  for  our  confession  before  men. 
For  it  is  a  mark  by  which  we  openly  profess  our  desire  to 
be  numbered  among  the  people  of  God,  by  which  we  testify 
our  agreement  with  all  Christians  in  the  worship  of  one 
God,  and  in  one  religion,  and  by  which  we  make  a  public 
declaration  of  our  faith."  8 

7.  It  is  expressive  of  hope  of  a  future  and  triumphant 
resurrection.  "Buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death; 
that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory 
of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of 
life.  For  if  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness 
of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrec- 
tion." 9  "  Else  what  shall  they  do  who  are  baptized  for  the 
dead,  if  the  dead  rise  not  at  all  ?  why  are  they  then  baptized 
for  the  dead  ?" 10 

Finally — It  sets  forth  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  "  The 
corruption  of  the  nature  of  every  man,  that  naturally  is  en- 
gendered of  the  offspring  of  Adam,  whereby  man  is  very  far 
gone  from  original  righteousness,  and  of  his  own  nature  in- 
clined to  evil,  and  that  continually,"  "  is  clearly  and  solemnly 
taught  in  infant  baptism.  Reference  to  the  propriety  of  in- 
fant baptism  on  the  ground  of  the  original  corruption  of 
man,  furnished  Augustine  with  an  irresistible  argument 
against  Pelagius.     As  it  sets  forth  the  doctrine  of  original 


7  Calvin's  Inst.  b.  iv.  c.  xiv.  sec.  19.        8  Calvin's  Inst.  b.  iv.  c.  xv.  sec.  13. 
9  Rom.  vL  3-5.        ,0  1  Cor.  xv.  29.       n  See  art.  vii.  of  our  Discipline. 


OBLIGATION   OF   BAPTISM.  23 


sin,  it  also  sets  forth  the  doctrine  of  free  grace.  The  doc- 
trine of  free  grace  is  especially  set  forth  in  infant  baptism, 
since  infants  have  an  unconditional  title  both  to  salvation 
and  baptism  according  to  the  doctrine  of  grace  before  faith : 
in  the  case  of  infants,  titles  and  claims  are  founded  upon 
free  grace  alone.  It  may  be  added,  that  the  whole  creed  of 
our  church,  with  all  the  obligations  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus 
Christ,  is  set  forth  in  the  offices  of  baptism  as  laid  down  in 
our  ritual.  No  objection  can  be  maintained  against  this 
service  of  the  church,  unless,  in  any  instance,  the  creed  of 
the  church  be  proved  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  plain  word 
of  God. 

We  shall  next  consider  the  obligation  to  be  baptized. 

1.  The  obligation  to  be  baptized  is  founded  upon  the  com- 
mand of  Christ :  "  Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them,"  &C.12     This  is  positive  and  decisive. 

2.  Upon  the  practice  of  the  apostles.  The  converts  were 
baptized  at  Philippi,13  at  Corinth,14  at  Ephesus,15  at  Colosse,16 
throughout  Asia  Minor,17  and  at  Rome.18  And  hence  we 
may  infer  that  all  the  converts  in  the  other  apostolic  churches 
were  also  baptized.  Thus,  obligation  to  be  baptized  rests 
upon  the  highest  authority  in  the  universe.  Those  who 
have  exercised  saving  faith,  and  have  not  been  baptized  in 
infancy,  cannot  neglect  this  obligation  without  incurring  the 
displeasure  of  God.  The  sacrament  of  baptism  is  positive 
as  well  as  moral,  and  voluntary  neglect  of  it  cannot  be  for- 
given without  hearty  repentance  before  God.  As  baptism  is 
the  formal  means  by  which  the  subject  is  consecrated  to 
Christ,  obligation  to  observe  it  extends  no  farther  than  the 
importance  which  is  connected  with  the  formal,  sensible  in- 

i2  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  13  Acts  xvi.  15-^3. 

M  Acts  xviii.  8 ;  1  Cor.  i.  13 ;  xv.  29. 
15  Acts  iv.  5 ;  xix.  5.  16  Col.  ii.  12. 

17  1  Pet.  iii.  21.  18  Rom.  vi.  3. 


24  OBLIGATION   OF   BAPTISM, 


stitutes  of  Christianity;  and  neglect  of  baptism,  as  the 
neglect  of  the  Lord's  supper — the  other  sacrament  of  the 
Christian  dispensation — has  all  the  guilt  which  is  connected 
with  the  neglect  of  any  of  the  ordinances  of  religion.  Bap- 
tism, in  the  case  of  adults,  should  be  received  at  the  earliest 
opportunity  after  the  act  of  justifying  faith  has  been 
exercised. 

The  question  is  often  asked,  Is  baptism  a  matter  of  moral 
obligation  ?  The  specific  nature  of  this  question  must  first 
be  determined.  If  the  question  have  reference  to  a  specific 
and  invariable  mode,  or  to  any  specific  and  particular  time, 
the  answer  is,  that  these  circumstances  of  baptism  are  im- 
material and  non-essential.  But  that  the  believer  who  has 
not  been  baptized  is  under  moral  obligation  to  be  baptized 
according  to  some  mode  which  he  may  prefer,  and  at  the 
earliest  suitable  time,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  As  baptism, 
in  several  of  its  essential  features,  however,  is  wholly  sensible, 
its  observance  must  depend  upon  concurrent  circumstances 
of  a  sensible  character;  and  so,  under  some  circumstances, 
it  may  be  postponed  or  omitted  without  guilt,19 — as  in  the 
case  of  the  penitent  on  the  cross,  and  in  any  case  where 
baptism  is  impracticable. 

Note. — There  is  an  important  design  connected  with  the 
institution  of  baptism,  which  must  strike  the  attention  of 
every  careful  reader  with  peculiar  force.  Embracing,  as 
baptism  does,  the  principles  just  considered,  and  being  the 
initiating  sacrament  of  the  Christian  church,  it  continues  a 
standing  proof  to  all  ages  of  the  divine  origin  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion.  The  continued  observance  of  rites  and  cere- 
monies through  succeeding  ages,  presents  the  strongest  evi- 
dence of  the  authenticity  of  their  original  institution.     The 

19  It  is  unlike  faith  in  these  respects,  which  is  purely  a  spiritual  exer- 
cise, and  hence  is  independent  of  outward  circumstances,  and  so  is  of 
immediate,  universal,  and  perpetual  obligation. 


CIRCUMSTANCES    ESSENTIAL.  25 


passover,  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread,  and  other  institu- 
tions of  the  Jewish  system,  were  standing  proofs  to  the  Jews 
of  the  divine  origin  of  their  religion.  So  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  supper  remain  to  this  day,  and  will  so  remain  to  the 
end  of  time,  as  commanding  evidences  of  the  divine  origin 
of  the  Christian  religion.  Their  commemorative  character, 
while  it  gives  visibility  to  the  Christian  church,  refers  to  the 
time,  circumstances,  and  design  of  the  original  institution. 
Without  the  sacraments  the  church  would  soon  be  commin- 
gled with,  and  indistinguishable  from  the  world.  The  Qua- 
kers, who  reject  the  sacraments,  give  visibility  to  their  society 
by  peculiarities  of  dress,  speech,  and  behavior.  "We  little 
think,  as  Christians,  how  much  we  owe  to  the  sacraments  as 
evidences  of  the  Christian  religion,  until  the  truth  and 
authority  of  Christianity  are  assailed  by  the  infidel  and  un- 
believer. Especially  does  the  humble  believer  find  the 
formality  of  the  church  corroborative  of  its  divine  origin, 
although  it  may  be  barren  and  burdensome  to  him  who  has 
assumed  it  as  the  counterfeit  of  real  piety. 


CHAPTER  II. 

CIRCUMSTANCES  ESSENTIAL  TO  THE  VALIDITY  OF  BAPTISM. 

Having  considered  the  nature  and  obligation  of  baptism, 
we  shall  next  consider  what  constitutes  valid  baptism.  There 
are  five  elements  essential  to  preserve  it  in  harmony  and 
connection  with  the  plan  of  salvation,  and  to  secure  its 
validity  as  the  initiatory  sacrament  of  the  church  under  the 
Christian  dispensation, — namely,  the  proper  administrator, 
the  proper  subjects,  the  proper  form,  the  proper  element, 
and  any  appropriate  mode. 

1,  The  proper  administrator.     The  man  converted  yester- 

3 


26  CIRCUMSTANCES    ESSENTIAL 

day,  and  unbaptized  to-day,  is  not  the  proper  administratoi , 
Nor  is  every  converted  man  who  has  been  baptized,  though 
of  splendid  talents  or  exalted  piety,  a  proper  administrator. 
Neither  conversion,  nor  baptism,  nor  talent,  nor  piety,  singly 
or  combined,  can  invest  any  one  with  the  right  to  baptize. 

The  proper  administrator  is  the  man  who  has  believed  in 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  been  born  again,  called  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  preach  the  gospel,  and  has  been  solemnly  set  apart 
by  the  church,  according  to  its  form  of  ordination,  to  dis- 
pense the  word  of  God  and  to  administer  the  holy  sacra- 
ments.1 And  so  Christ  himself,  in  the  great  commission, 
invests  the  preacher  only  with  the  right  to  baptize  :  "  Go  ye 
into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature, 
baptizing  in  the  name,"  &e. 

2.  The  proper  form  of  baptism.  Christ,  the  Founder  of 
the  Christian  dispensation,  has  given  the  proper  form  of 
initiation  into  the  church,  under  the  Christian  dispensation, 
in  the  following  words  : — "  In  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  And  why  was  this 
form  given  ?  Because  the  three  persons  in  the  Trinity  are 
engaged  in  the  work  of  redemption.  Why,  then,  was  not 
this  form  of  initiation  into  the  church  given  at  some  earlier 
period  of  the  world?  Because  the  Son  of  God,  one  of  the 
parties  to  the  great  scheme  of  salvation,  had  not  yet  been 
fully  revealed  to  the  world ;  and  because,  consequently,  the 
Holy  Spirit,  another  party,  was  under  the  necessity  of  delay- 
ing the  full  outpouring  of  his  influences  till  the  ground  of 
his  agency,  the  sacrifice  of  the  Son,  should  be  offered  up  and 

1  It  is  worthy  of  observation,  that  ordinarily  the  church  is  impressed 
with  the  presentiment  that  the  candidate  for  orders  is  a  proper  person  to 
receive  them;  even  the  world,  sometimes,  is  impressed  with  the  same 
belief:  as  if,  it  would  seem,  the  Holy  Spirit  hereby  prepares  the  church 
and  the  world  with  confidence  in  the  man  thus  called  to  preach  the  gos- 
pel and  administer  the  sacraments. 


TO    THE    VALIDITY    OF    BAPTISM.  27 


manifested  to  the  world.  No  other  form  of  initiation  could 
correspond  to  the  Christian  dispensation,  and  consequently 
baptism  is  incomplete  without  this  form.3 

3.  The  proper  subjects.  Passing  by  infants  for  the  pre- 
sent, it  is  universally  conceded  that  the  believer  is  a  prope: 
subject  of  baptism. 

4.  The  proper  element.  The  proper  element  is  water. 
Water  is  proper  from  the  purity  of  its  nature  and  effects^ 
and  is  emblematical  of  the  purity  and  spirituality  of  the 
Christian  dispensation;  the  purity  of  the  Holy  Grhost,  the 
agent  in  conversion ;  the  purity  of  the  results  of  faith  in 
conversion — namely,  a  pure  nature,  pure  principles,  pure 
motives,  pure  feelings,  pure  dispositions,  holy  relations  and 
actions,  with  all  the  blessings,  holy  influences,  and  designs 
of  the  atonement  of  Christ  provided  for  man  under  the 
Christian  dispensation.  This  is  the  design  of  water  in  bap- 
tism— the  whole  design.  To  what  other  use  can  water  be 
applied  in  the  salvation  of  the  soul  ?  It  cannot,  in  the  least 
degree,  supersede  the  efficacy  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  nor  the 
agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  nor  the  office  and  necessity  of 
faith :  it  has  a  general,  expressive,  emblematical  significa- 
tion— this  is  all. 

5.  The  proper  mode.  The  administrator,  the  subjects, 
the  form,  and  the  element  to  be  used  in  administering  bap- 

2  Upon  an  examination  of  the  practice  of  the  ancient  churches  it  ■will 
be  found,  in  every  case,  that  consecration  to  the  Trinity  is  the  import 
of  baptism.  And  hence  the  apostles  rebaptized  the  disciples  of  John, 
because  they  had  not  explicitly  professed  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  in  the 
baptism  of  John.  Consecration  to  the  Trinity  is  a  primary  and  peculiar 
import  of  baptism.  Nothing  allusive  to  the  burial  of  the  subject,  in 
earth  or  -water,  is  designed.  Nor  can  it  have  reference  to  the  death  of 
Christ,  because  it  has  reference  solely  to  the  service  of  Christ.  Tho 
primary  and  peculiar  import  of  the  holy  eucharist  is  the  death  of  Christ, 
and  hence  it  is  not  credible  that  baptism  also  should  "show  forth  his 
death" — that  two  rites,  and  the  only  two  rites  of  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion, should  refer  to  the  same  thing. 


28  CIRCUMSTANCES    ESSENTIAL 


tism  are  all  defined  and  enjoined  in  the  clearest  manner,  but 
not  one  word  of  specification  and  injunction  respecting  the 
mode  of  baptism  can  be  found  in  the  Bible.  In  the  other 
parts  of  baptism  as  they  stand  related  to  each  other,  in  order 
to  secure  the  validity  of  its  administration,  we  find  all  to  be 
plain,  rational,  and  harmonious ;  but  here,  as  it  respects  the 
mode,  the  connection,  at  first  view,  at  least,  is  not  so  easily 
apprehended.  As  we  do  not  at  once  see  clearly  the  connec- 
tion of  the  mode  with  the  other  parts  of  baptism,  and  as  no 
specific  mode  is  explicitly  enjoined  in  the  Scriptures,  we  are 
to  seek  the  best  evidence  to  satisfy  our  minds  on  the  subject. 
If  the  mode  were  clearly  and  specifically  enjoined  in  the 
Bible,  it  would  be  solemnly  and  perpetually  binding,  how- 
ever inconsistent  it  might  appear  to  be  with  the  other  parts 
of  baptism.  But  as  it  is  not  explicitly  defined  and  enjoined, 
it  must  be  a  subject  of  inference.  That  is,  the  connection 
of  the  mode  with  the  circumstances  essential  to  constitute 
valid  baptism  must  be  either  expressed  or  implied,  direct  or 
inferable.  This  connection  is  not  directly  expressed  or  en- 
joined in  the  Bible :  therefore  the  connection  is  to  be  inferred, 
and  that  mode  is  to  be  preferred  which  best  preserves  this 
connection. 

Before  we  refer  to  the  sources  of  inference  on  this  subject, 
it  is  to  be  observed,,  that  they  furnish  nothing  in  the  form 
of  command  respecting  any  mode.  No  one  can  urge  any 
thing  to  be  a  duty  by  command,  which  can  only  be  made 
out  to  be  a  duty  by  inference.  Much  less  can  any  one  urge 
that  to  be  a  duty  upon  others,  which  is  made  out  merely  by 
Ms  inference.  My  own  inference  may  bind  my  conscience, 
but  it  can  be  obligatory  upon  no  one  else,  unless  he  infer  as 
I  do.  If,  therefore,  I  believe  or  infer  from  the  sources 
about  to  be  adduced,  that  immersion  is  not  the  most  proper 
mode  of  baptism,  I  cannot  consider  my  inference  as  binding 
on  any  one  else,  unless  he  think  with  me.     Respecting  the 


TO    THE    VALIDITY    OF    BAPTISM. 


doctrine  of  inference,  every  one  is  left  to  his  own  judgment, 
and  consequently,  one  with  the  Bible,  and  all  the  informa- 
tion he  can  get,  spread  out  before  him,  has  just  as  much 
right  to  infer  that  sprinkling  and  pouring  are  valid  modes, 
as  another  has  that  immersion  is  a  valid  mode;  and  hence 
these  modes  may  be  regarded  as  equally  binding  on  him,  as 
immersion  is  on  another  who  regards  it  as  the  only  valid 
mode.  In  administering  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  it  is 
essential  that  water  be  used  in  some  form,  and  if  any  par- 
ticular and  invariable  mode  of  its  use  had  been  deemed 
necessary  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  they  would  most  clearly 
have  specified  it;  but  as  they  did  not  deem  it  material,  they 
have  left  the  whole  matter  to  the  inference  of  the  church, — 
and  we  proceed  now  to  the  sources  of  light  with  which  we 
are  furnished  on  this  subject. 


PART  II. 
CHAPTER  I. 

THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

The  sources  of  inference  respecting  the  mode  of  baptism 
are  six: — 

1.  The  English  Scriptures. 

2.  The  original  Greek  word  pa-r^w,  bajptizo. 

3.  The  original  Greek  prepositions. 

4.  The  harmonious  connection  of  the  mode  with  the 
known  circumstances  of  spiritual  baptism,  and  the  plan  of 
salvation. 

5.  The  circumstantial  nature  of  the  institutions  of  Chris- 
tianity is  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  church. 

6.  Collateral  proofs. 

1.  The  English  Scriptures  are  the  first  source  to  which 
we  apply  for  information  respecting  the  mode  of  baptism. 
All  Scripture,  adduced  in  support  of  any  favorite  mode, 
leads  only  to  inference.  Take  the  case  of  immersion  as  an 
example.  Thus,  Christ  "went  up  straightway  out  of  the 
water" — and  it  is  inferred  that  he  came  up  from  under  the 
water.  "'Philip  and  the  eunuch  both  went  down  into" — 
and  it  is  inferred  that  the  eunuch  went  down  under  "the 
water."  "Buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death" — and 
it  is  inferred  that  we  are  to  be  buried  with  Christ  by  bap- 
30 


THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


tism  into  water.  And  so  of  all  other  passages  of  Scripture 
from  which  immersion  is  inferred.  Now  it  is  obvious,  that 
all  this  is  nothing  but  inference,  for  the  words  under  and 
water  are  supplied  by  the  imagination;  and  it  is  natural  for 
the  mind  under  moral  influences,  while  in  search  of  informa- 
tion to  support  favorite  opinions,  to  strengthen  doubtful 
evidences  by  light  from  the  imagination,  and  thus  incline 
to  that  mode  which  seems  to  be  sustained  by  the  strongest 
inferences  from  the  Scriptures.  But  so  far  as  immersion  is 
concerned,  it  is  not  once  used  in  the  Bible,  and  consequently 
no  inference  from  the  abstract  word  can  be  made  respecting 
the  mode  of  baptism — unless  the  idea  of  immersion  be  drawn 
from  the  original  word  fia-Ti^oj, — and  not  even  from  this — 
as  we  shall  see  presently.  But  the  very  words,  "sprin- 
kling" and  "pouring,"  are  used  repeatedly,  expressly  re- 
ferring to  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Grhost,  which  external 
baptism  is  intended  to  represent.  If  similar  passages  of 
Scripture,  in  which  spiritual  baptism  is  represented  by 
immersion,  could  be  produced,  then  inference  for  external 
baptism  by  immersion  would  be  equally  strong  with  inference 
for  external  baptism  by  sprinkling  and  pouring.  For  bap- 
tism by  sprinkling  and  pouring,  there  is  inference  based  on 
the  very  words,  which  is  stronger  than  mere  conjecture;  for 
I  do  contend,  that  all  immersionists  guess  at  immersion,  in 
all  cases,  in  the  Bible,  as  the  scriptural  mode  of  baptism. 
I  put  the  question : — Do  you  knoio  that  Christ,  or  any  one 
else  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  was  baptized  by  immersion? 
Do  you  know  it?  No,  but  you  honestly  infer  it;  and  ac- 
cording to  the  grounds  of  your  inference  is  the  strength  of 
your  belief.  But  the  belief  of  others  in  other  modes  is 
better  supported,  because  based  on  stronger  grounds,  as  we 
hope  to  show. 

It  is  sometimes  boldly  asserted  by  the  uninformed,  who 
never  read  the  Bible  through,  and  who  are  imperfectly  ac- 


THE   MODE   OF  BAPTISM, 


quainted  with  a  few  passages  of  Scripture  from  which  immer- 
sion is  inferred  by  them,  "  that  sprinkling  and  pouring  are 
not  found  in  the  Bible,  while  immersion  is  often  found." 
This  is  the  presumption  of  ignorance,  and  the  dogmatism  of 
prejudice.  The  reverse  is  true.  Immersion,  I  repeat,  is 
not  once  mentioned  in  the  Bible.  From  all  which  we  are 
brought  to  this  general  conclusion  : 

Because  the  mode  of  baptism  is  a  subject  of  inference, 
and  therefore  arbitrary  and  discretionary  with  the  responsible 
subject  of  baptism,  we  cannot  say  that  sprinkling  and  pour- 
ing are  the  only  proper  modes,  but  because  they  are  sus- 
tained, as  we  believe,  by  stronger  inference  than  immersion, 
while  we  do  not  exclude  immersion,  they  are  to  be  preferred 
to  immersion.  That  is,  in  a  case  like  the  present,  one  in- 
ference has  not  such  pre-eminence  over  another  that  it 
should  give  the  stronger  the  force  of  express  injunction,  to 
the  exclusion  of  the  weaker  as  unscriptural  and  invalid. 
The  selection  of  the  mode,  therefore,  is  to  be  left  with  the 
candidate  for  baptism,  capable  of  choosing,  as  in  a  thousand 
other  instances  he  enjoys  the  liberty  of  selecting  the  mode. 

Invested  with  this  right  of  choice,  different  minds  are 
differently  and  innocently  persuaded.  Take  a  supposed  case 
of  three  candidates  for  baptism.  The  first  comes  and  says, 
"I  desire  to  be  baptized  by  sprinkling."  And  why  do  you 
wish  to  be  baptized  by  sprinkling?  "Because  I  believe  it 
is  the  scriptural  mode."  You  believe  it  is  the  scriptural 
mode?  "Yes,  for  I  read,  ll  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon 
you/  &c.  3  *  and  as  this  refers  to  the  inward  baptism,  I  be- 
lieve the  external  baptism  should  correspond  as  nearly  as 
possible  to  the  internal — and  therefore  I  wish  to  be  baptized 
by  sprinkling."  Very  well,  you  shall  be  baptized  by  sprin- 
kling. 

1  Ezek.  xxxvL  23;  Isa.  Hi.  15. 


THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM.  33 


The  second  candidate  approaches  and  says,  "But  I  wish 
to  be  baptized  by  pouring."  And  why  do  you  wish  to  be 
baptized  by  pouring?  "Because  I  believe  it  is  the  scriptu- 
ral mode,  for  I  read,  'I  will  pour  out  my  spirit  upon  all 
flesh/  a  and  as  this  refers  to  spiritual  baptism,  I  suppose 
the  external  mode  of  baptism  ought  to  be  analogous — and 
therefore  I  prefer  baptism  by  pouring."  Yery  well,  you 
shall  be  baptized  by  pouring.  But  the  third  candidate  is 
of  a  different  opinion:  "I  desire,"  says  he,  "to  be  baptized 
by  immersion."  Why  so?  "Because  I  believe  it  is  the 
scriptural  mode."  And  why  do  you  believe  it  is  the  scrip- 
tural mode?  "Because,  I  read,  Christ  'went  up  straight- 
way out  of  the  water/3  and,  'they  went  down  both  into 
the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch/4  and  so  I  infer 
Christ  and  the  eunuch  were  immersed,  and  therefore  I  wish 
to  be  baptized  by  immersion."  Yery  well,  you  shall  be 
baptized  by  immersion.  Each  has  his  mode,  founded  on 
inference,  and  the  wishes  of  each  are  to  be  respected  by  the 
proper  administrator.  That  the  two  former,  however,  have 
a  broader  ground  for  inference  than  the  third  candidate, 
cannot  be  questioned  for  a  moment,  since  they  proceed  un- 
der the  force  of  the  very  words  expressing  the  mode  of 
spiritual  baptism,  which  external  baptism  is  intended  to 
represent.  All  the  light  then  from  the  English  Scriptures, 
respecting  the  mode  of  baptism,  is  circumstantially  and  in- 
ferentially  in  favor  of  sprinkling  and  pouring. 

2.  The  second  source  of  information  respecting  the  mode 
of  baptism,  to  which  we  direct  attention,  is  the  original 
Greek  word,  /3a7TT:'f>,  haptizo. 

First.  "We  are  not  to  determine  the  meaning  of  this  word 
by  the  particles  and  appendages  with  which  it  is  often  found 
connected  in  Scripture.     Common  readers,  who  do  not  un- 

2  Joel  ii.  28.  »  Matt.  iii.  16.  *  Acts  riii.  38. 


34  THE    MODE   OP   BAPTISM. 


derstand  the  primary  meaning  of  this  famous  word,  deter- 
mine its  signification  by  the  particles  and  phrases  thrown 
around  it.  But  this  is  giving  to  the  original  word  the 
meaning  of  its  appendages;  which  is  unfair,  since  the 
appendages  have  a  distinct  meaning  in  themselves,  and 
consequently  are  to  be  examined  disconnected  from  the 
original  word.  Let  us  remove  these  phrases,  and  consider 
them  by  themselves.  The  phrases,  "  went  down  into,"  "  came 
up  out  of,"  "when  he  came  up  straightway  out  of,"  "in 
Jordan,"  "buried  into  death,"  and  suchlike  expressions  are 
to  be  examined  separately.  Now,  do  these  phrases  mean 
immersion?  Certainly  not;  and  as  a  plain  reader,  unac- 
quainted with  the  original  word,  you  are  left  to  the  whole 
force  of  inference  from  these  phrases.  We  offer  you  the 
following  criticisms,  to  prove  that  the  particles  and  append- 
ages connected  with  this  word  had  no  reference  to  its  mean- 
ing, but  to  the  circumstances  of  its  use,  and  therefore  they 
can  furnish  no  aid  in  determining  the  signification  of  bajptizo. 
In  the  case  of  the  eunuch,  the  phrases  "went  down  into," 
and  "came  up  out  of"  had  reference  to  the  chariot  and  the 
manner  of  approaching  and  leaving  the  water,  and  not  to 
the  manner  or  mode  of  baptism.  The  words  which  are 
translated  "went  down  into,"  and  "came  out  of,"  are  xara- 
ftaivw,  katabaino,  and  avafiabu),  anabaino.  That  we  may 
learn  the  meaning  of  these  terms  in  the  present  instance, 
let  us  consider  their  meaning  in  other  passages  of  Scripture. 
The  multitude,  while  Christ  was  nailed  to  the  cross,  railed 
on  him,  and  said — "  If  thou  be  the  Son  of  God,  come  down 
from — xa-dfirj&t,  hatabethi — the  cross."5  On  the  morning 
of  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  "  the  angel  of  the  Lord  de- 
scended— xaraftaq,  katabas — from  heaven,"  &c.6  And  Jesus 
straightway  coming  up  out  of- — dvafiaivwv  axo}  anabainon 

5  Matt,  xxvii.  40.  6  Matt,  xxviii.  2. 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  35 


apo — the  water,  lie  saw  the  heavens  opened,  and  the  Spirit 
like  a  dove  descending  —  zarcfiaivov,  katabainon —  upon 
him/'7  " And  Jesus  (joeth  up  into — avafiaweCj  cumhainei — 
a  mountain."  "And  the  scribes  which  came  down — xa-a- 
pdvreGj  katabantes — from  Jerusalem/'  "And  Jesus  went 
up — d'ssfir],  anebe — unto  them  into  the  ship" — where  from  ? 
Why,  right  from  the  water — from  the  surface  of  the  sea : 
certainly  he  did  not  go  up  from  under  the  water,  as  the 
Baptists  suppose  the  eunuch  went  up  from  the  water  into 
his  chariot.  "And  as  they  came  down  from — xara^aiv6vrutv7 
katabainonton — the  mountain."  "And  he  desired  Philip 
that  he  would  come  up — ava,3a^ra,  anabanta — and  sit  with 
him."  8  Thus,  when  Matthew  says  that  Christ  "  came  up 
straightway  out  of  the  water,"  and  when  Luke  says  that 
the  eunuch  "went  down  into  the  water,"  and  "came  up  out 
of  the  water,"  we  are  not  to  suppose  that  these  phrases  in- 
volve the  idea  of  immersion,  or  furnish  us  any  satisfactory 
light  respecting  the  mode  of  baptism,  but  only  refer  to  the 
fact  of  baptism.  In  the  case  of  Philip,  we  have  already 
Been  him  go  up  into — mtapavra,  (verse  31,) — the  chariot,  and 
seat  himself  by  the  side  of  the  eunuch.  Presently  (verse  38) 
we  see  Philip  descending — xazlfaaav — from  the  chariot  to — 
efe,  eis — the  water  with  the  eunuch,  to  baptize  him.  Not 
one  word  in  all  this  respecting  the  mode  of  baptizing.  The 
phrases  "down  into,"  and  "came  up  out  of,"  or  from,  (as 
ex,  ek,  may  be  translated,)  refer  to  Philip  as  much  as  to  the 
eunuch,  and  describe  their  descent  from  the  chariot  to  the 
water,  and  return  from  the  water  to  the  chariot.  If  these 
phrases  signify  immersion,  then  what  force  is  to  be  given  to 
the  member  of  the  sentence — "and  he  baptized  him?"     If 


7  Mark  i.  10. 

8  Acts  viii.  31.     "Without  doubt,  anabanta  here  refers  to  the  chariot , 
for  as  yet  they  had  not  reached  any  water. 


36  THE   MODE   OP   BAPTISM. 


the  phrases  and  the  member  of  the  sentence  both  imply  im- 
mersion, then  the  eunuch  was  baptized  twice! — for  the  whole 
statement  is,  they  "  both  went  down  into  the  water,  and  he 
baptized  him."  Besides,  if  the  phrase  "down  into  the 
water"  signifies  immersion,  then  Philip,  the  administrator, 
was  also  immersed:  aand  they  went  down  both  into  the 

WATER,    BOTH    PHILIP    AND     THE     EUNUCH."       But    if  We 

consider  the  phrases  as  referring  only  to  the  manner  of  ap- 
proaching and  leaving  the  water,  they  may  apply  with  equal 
propriety  both  to  Philip  and  the  eunuch,  without  involving 
the  idea  of  the  immersion  of  either  the  subject  or  the  ad- 
ministrator. Therefore,  the  idea  of  mode  cannot  be  deduced 
from  the  declaration,  "and  he  baptized  him." 

If  the  particles  "  in,"  "  into,"  and  the  phrase  "  out  of" 
mean  under,  then  Daniel  was  thrown  under  the  lions'  den. 
Jesus  went  under  the  mountain.  Jacob  went  down  under 
Egypt.  Zaccheus  climbed  under  the  tree.  Christ  and  the 
penitent  thief  went  up  from  the  cross  under  paradise.  John 
baptized  under  Jordan.  Jesus  came  up  straightway  from 
under  Jordan.  The  sons  of  the  prophets  went  under  Jordan 
to  cut  wood.  The  Romans  were  buried  by  baptism  under 
death.  The  Galatians  were  baptized  under  Christ.  Paul 
baptized  the  jailer  under  the  jail.  The  Jews  were  baptized 
under  Moses,  and  under  the  sea.  Peter  went  under  the  sea, 
and  cast  a  hook.  All  the  church  were  baptized  under  one 
body.  It  is  needless  to  multiply  instances  of  the  misappli- 
cation of  these  terms ;  we  will  conclude  by  simply  stating 
that  the  preposition  ev,  en,  translated  in  Jordan,  in  the  New 
Testament,  is  rendered  150  times  with,  and  more  than  100 
times  at.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  particles  and 
phrases  thrown  around  the  word  haj)tizo  determine  nothing 
respecting  its  meaning,  and  of  course  can  furnish  no  infor- 
mation concerning  the  mode  of  baptism. 

Secondly.  Since  the  whole  strength  of  the  case  turns  at 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  37 


last  on  the  word  baptizo,  we  will  take  it  disconnected  from 
its  appendages,  and  examine  into  its  meaning. 

It  is  asserted  by  the  Baptists,  that  baptizo  means  to  im- 
merse, and  only  to  immerse,  and  needs  not  the  appendage 
of  other  words  to  determine  its  meaning.  Very  well ;  let  us 
take  up  baptizo  by  itself.  "  Went  down  into,"  and  "  came 
up  out  of"  are  to  be  taken  away,  and  "  he  baptized  him"  is 
to  settle  the  mode  of  the  baptism  of  the  eunuch.  "When 
he  went  up  straightway  out  of,"  and  "in  Jordan"  are  to  be 
taken  away,  and  "when  he  was  baptized"  is  to  determine  the 
mode  of  Christ's  baptism.  So,  "buried  with  him"  is  to  be 
taken  away,  and  "by  baptism"  is  to  determine  the  mode  of 
baptism  in  the  case  of  the  Komans.  Baptizo,  as  it  now 
stands  alone,  is  wholly  divested  of  the  force  of  the  inference 
connected  with  its  appendages,  and  we  are  to  determine  the 
mode  of  baptism  by  the  inherent  meaning  of  baptizo,  as  it  is 
used  in  the  gospel  sense,  exclusive  of  all  other  considerations. 
We  proceed  to  consider  at  large  the  original  meaning  of  bap- 
tizo— a  word  respecting  whose  meaning  the  Christian  church 
has  been  involved  in  so  many  unhappy  controversies  ever 
since  discussion  about  it  commenced. 

The  primary  meaning  of  jSa-rt^aj,  in  its  EVANGELICAL 
sense,  is  to  wash — a  meaning  corresponding  to  the  nature 
of  spiritual  baptism,  and  the  character  of  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation, of  which  baptism  is  the  initiatory  sacrament.  In 
this  sense  baptizo  is  used  rationally  and  emblematically, 
since  such  a  meaning  is  in  connection  with  the  whole  scheme 
of  salvation ;  while,  in  the  sense  of  immersion,  it  is  used 
without  connection  and  without  rational  signification.  It  is 
admitted  that  classic  authors  employ  the  word  in  the  sense 
of  immersion ;  but  then,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be  ob- 
served that  they  often  use  the  word  in  other  senses  also  ; 
and,  in  the  second  place,  what  did  ancient  classic  authors 
know  about  the  sacrament  of  baptism  ?     Had  they  under- 

4 


38  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 


stood  the  nature  and  design  of  Christian  baptism,  and  then 
used  the  word  in  the  sense  of  immersion,  there  might  be 
some  force  in  the  references  which  Baptists  make  to  them 
as  authority  in  settling  the  evangelical  sense  of  baptizo. 
But  as  the  case  now  stands,  how  are  we  to  tell  whether  the 
word  is  to  be  used  in  the  sense  of  immersion,  or  in  the  other 
senses  in  which  it  is  used  by  classic  authors?  It  is  evident 
that  we  are  to  determine  its  evangelical  sense  from  the  gos- 
pel ;  and,  if  the  sense  in  which  it  is  plainly  used  in  the  gos- 
pel be  clearly  determined  to  be  otherwise  than  what  Greek 
writers  give  it  in  the  quotations  usually  made  by  Baptist 
critics,  then  we  are  to  adopt  the  evangelical  sense  in  prefer- 
ence to  the  classical — not  that  the  one  is  in  opposition  to 
the  other,  but  that  the  evangelical  sense  of  the  term  is  some- 
times given  by  classic  authors,  which  the  sacred  penmen 
selected  as  applicable  to  Christian  baptism. 

Preparatory  to  the  consideration  of  the  evangelical  mean- 
ing of  bajjtizo,  we  invite  attention  to  the  following  remarks  : 

First.  There  are  two  kinds  of  evidence  addressed  to  our 
belief,  namely,  moral  and  demonstrative;  and  such  is  the 
constitution  of  mind,  that  both  these  kinds  of  evidence  are 
regarded  equally  strong  and  satisfactory.  And  such  is  the 
nature  of  certain  great  moral  questions,  that  demonstrative 
evidence  is  inapplicable  in  settling  them :  indeed,  the  most 
important  questions  of  life,  reputation,  and  property  are 
sometimes  settled  by  moral  evidence  alone.  Moral  evidence 
as  effectually  convinces  as  demonstrative  evidence  does  in 
the  plainest  questions  of  mathematics.  All  philological 
reasoning  is  circumstantial,  moral,  and  cumulative,  and  em- 
braces all  the  facts  and  laws  and  their  corresponding  mental 
impressions  in  a  given  case. 

Secondly.  In  the  translation,  or  transfer  of  a  word  from 
one  language  to  another,  the  original  signification  cannot  in 
all  cases  be  preserved.     In  John  iii.  5,  we  have — "  Except  a 


THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


man  be  born  of  water,  and  the  Spirit,  lie  cannot  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God."  Now  the  primary  and  classic  meaning 
of  the  word  nveofia — pneuma — here  rendered  Spirit,  is  wind; 
and  the  literal  translation  should  be — "  except  a  man  be  born 
of  water  and  the  wind,"  &c.  Indeed,  in  the  8th  verse,  this 
word  is  translated  wind:  "the  wind  bloweth  where  it  list- 
eth,"  &c.  Upon  the  principle  of  interpretation  adopted  by 
the  Baptists,  it  is  impossible  to  show  that  the  doctrine  of 
regeneration,  or  the  personal  existence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is 
taught  in  these  verses.  Take  another  example  : — "  For  the 
Sadducees  say,  there  is  no  resurrection,  neither  angel,  nor 
spirit;  but  the  Pharisees  believe  both."9  The  original 
meanings  of  the  tenns  here  used  are  :  avdaraait; — anastasis 
— a  rising  up;  a?(yz\o<; — anggelos — messenger;  and  -vedfia — 
pneuma,  as  above,  wind.  The  literal  meaning  would  be — 
"  For  the  Sadducees  say,  there  is  no  rising  up,  neither  mes- 
senger, nor  wind;  but  the  Pharisees  believe  both" — a  trans- 
lation absolutely  ridiculous  and  absurd.  Again  :  "  For  with 
God  nothing  shall  be  impossible." — Ob/.  aSuwarrjffsi  Tzapd.  rip 
8suj  Ttav  p^/j.a.i0  And  again :  "  There  shall  no  flesh  be 
saved,"11 — uux  civ  eaco^-q  r.aaa  caps.  On  these  verses,  Dr. 
George  Campbell  says — "  These  passages  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment Greek  are  phrases  which,  in  my  apprehension,  would 
not  have  been  more  intelligible  to  a  Greek  author  than  Arabic 
or  Persian  would  have  been.  tPriixa  for  thing,  paaa  obx  for 
no  one,  and  <rdp~  for  person,  &c,  would  to  him,  I  suspect, 
have  proved  insurmountable  obstacles.  This  is  but  a  small 
specimen — not  the  hundredth  part  of  what  might  be  adduced 
on  the  subject."  12  To  give  but  one  more  example  :  Nopoq, 
which  originally  meant  a  song,  soon  came  to  mean  a  law, 
because  the  first  laws  of  all  nations,  according  to  Plato,  were 

9  Acts  xxiii.  8.  10  Luke  i.  37. 

11  Matt.  xxiv.  22.  12  Prelim.  Dis.  vol.  i.  p.  30. 


40  THE   MODE   OE   BAPTISM. 


composed  in  verse  and  sung;  and  Aristotle,  in  his  problems, 
says,  that  before  the  use  of  writing  it  was  customary  to  keep 
the  laws  in  remembrance  by  singing  them.  The  laws  of 
ancient  Sparta  were  all  arranged  in  verse,  and  so  were  the 
laws  of  Tuisco,  the  first  legislator  of  the  ancient  Germans. 

Thirdly.  Admitting,  which  we  do  not,  that  immerse  is  the 
meaning  invariably  given  to  baptizo  in  classic  Greek,  yet 
classic  Greek  is  not  to  be  the  standard  in  denning  the  mean- 
ing of  the  New  Testament  Greek — not  to  be  the  standard 
in  determining  the  evangelical  signification  of  baptizo.  The 
opinions  of  learned  authors  on  the  subject  shall  first  be 
adduced.  "  A  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament,  at  the  present 
day,  presupposes  the  fact,  that  the  language  of  the  New 
Testament  exhibits  in  many  points  a  departure  from  the 
idiom  of  the  Attic  Greek.  The  great  question,  which  so 
long  agitated  the  learned  philologists  of  Europe,  would 
seem  at  present  to  be  put  entirely  to  rest.  In  defining 
words,  those  significations  are  placed  first  which  accord  with 
Greek  usage.  Then  follow  those  significations  which  depart 
from  Greek  usage,  and  which  are  to  be  illustrated  from  the 
Greek  of  the  Septuagint,  as  compared  with  the  Hebrew,  or 
depend  solely  on  the  usus  loauendi  of  the  New  Testament 
writers."13  "  Classical  use,  both  in  Greek  and  Latin,  is  not 
only,  in  this  study,  sometimes  unavailable,  but  may  even 
mislead.  The  sacred  use,  and  the  classical,  are 
often  very  different."14  "  The  language  of  the  New 
Testament  is  the  later  Greek,  as  spoken  by  foreigners  of 
the  Hebrew  stock,  and  applied  by  them  to  subjects  on  which 
it  had  never  been  applied  by  native  Greeks.  After  the  dis- 
use of  the  ancient  Hebrew  in  Palestine,  and  the  irruption 
of  the  western  conquerors,   the  Jews  adopted  the  Greek 

13  Prof.  Robinson's  Pref.  to  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament. 

14  Dr.  George  Campbell,  -whom  the  Baptists  regard  as  one  of  the  most 
learned  scholars  of  modern  times. 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  41 


language  from  necessity — partly  as  a  conquered  people, 
and  partly  from  intercourse  of  life  and  commerce,  in  colo- 
nies, and  cities,  founded  like  Alexandria,  and  others,  which 
were  peopled  with  throngs  of  the  Jews.  It  was  therefore 
the  spoken  language  of  ordinary  life  which  they  learned, 
not  the  classic  style  of  books  which  have  come  down  to  us. 
But  they  spoke  it  as  foreigners,  whose  native  tongue  was 
the  later  Aramean ;  and  it  therefore  could  not  fail  to  acquire 
from  their  lips  a  strong  Semitic  character  and  coloring. 
When  to  this  we  add,  that  they  spoke  in  Greek  on  the 
things  of  the  true  God,  and  the  relations  of  mankind  to 
Jehovah  and  to  a  Savior — subjects  on  which  no  native 
Greek  had  ever  applied  his  beautiful  language — it  will  be 
obvious,  that  an  appeal  merely  to  classic  Greek  and  its 
philology  will  not  suffice  for  the  interpretation  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  Jewish-Greek  must  be  studied  almost  as 
an  independent  dialect."  * 

This  is  involved  in  the  nature  of  things.  When  the  pro- 
found and  peculiar  truths  of  the  gospel  are  revealed  to  any 
people,  the  old  words  of  their  language  must  receive  a  new 
import  and  denote  new  ideas.  Says  David  Brainerd, 
"There  are  no  words  in  the  Indian  language  to  answer  to 
our  English  words,  Lord,  Savior,  salvation,  sinner,  justice, 
condemnation,  faith,  adoption,  glory,  with  scores  of  like  im- 
portance." In  this  way  the  word  baptizo  is  to  be  explained, 
not  in  the  sense  in  which  it  may  be  used  in  the  Greek 
classics,  but  as  it  is  applied  to  a  religious  ordinance,  signi- 
fying a  spiritual  washing  or  purification,  without  the  least 
reference  to  the  mode  in  which  the  ordinance  is  administered. 
The  classic  signification  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  the 
generic,  sacred  use  of  the  term;  and,  in  this  latter  sense, 
Christ  and  his  apostles  are  competent  authorities,  since  they 

15  Prof.  Edward  Robinson. 


42  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 


have  as  good  authority  to  explain  their  own  meaning  as 
Zenophon,  Aristotle,  or  any  other  classic  author  has  to  ex- 
plain his  meaning.  The  Holy  Ghost  gives  the  evangelical 
meaning  to  baptizo,  to  wash,  to  purify,  as  we  shall  see,  and 
this  is  the  highest  authority  in  the  universe.  The  word 
baptizo,  in  the  wide  range  of  its  classic  use,  never  has  a 
religious  signification;  but  it  has  this  signification  in  its 
scriptural  use;  therefore  it  is  to  be  taken  in  a  different 
sense  in  its  scriptural  use,  from  what  it  had  in  its  classic 
use.  In  its  classic  use,  it  does  not  always  mean  to  immerse 
— it  never  did  denote  an  invariable  mode  in  its  classic  use 
— and  hence  cannot  denote  an  invariable  mode  in  its  scrip- 
tural use.16  But  admitting — which  we  do  not — that  in  its 
original)  primitive,  classic  use,  it  invariably  meant  to  im- 
merse, even  then  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  its  scriptural 
sense  is  to  be  derived  from  the  new  evidence,  the  new  facts, 
and  new  circumstances  connected  with  its  scriptural  use. 
For  such  are  the  laws  of  mental  exercise,  that  even  ad- 
mitting, which  we  do  not,  that  baptizo  in  its  classic  use  in- 
variably means  to  immerse,  yet  from  the  effect  of  immersion, 
the  mind,  in  the  ritual  application  of  the  word,  might  fix 
upon  the  effect  of  immersion  alone,  and  so  give  the  meaning 
of  thorough  cleansing  or  purifying,  without  any  reference 
whatever  to  any  specific  mode  as  essential.  All  sound  phi- 
lologists know  what  influence  the  imagination,  the  laws  of 
association,  taste,  education,  habits,  manners,  customs,  and 
new  circumstances,  have  upon  modifying  the  original,  primi- 
tive meaning  of  a  word,  till  the  original  idea  is  lost,  and  a 
secondary  sense  substituted. 

16  See  Editor  of  Calmet's  Dictionary,  some  eighty  examples,  taken  in 
part  from  ancient  fathers,  and  classic  writers,  and  from  the  Bible,  in  all 
of  which  the  word  implies  less  than  immersion,  and  in  most  of  which,  it 
implies  sprinkling,  moistening,  pouring,  or  staining;  and  therefore 
ancient  Greek  and  the  Bible  do  not  sustain  the  exclusiveness  of  the 
Baptists. 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  43 


In  reply  to  the  assumption  of  the  Baptists,  that  immersion 
is  the  only  legitimate  and  authorized  meaning  of  baptizo 
we  offer  the  following  considerations. 

First.  Bd~no,  bapto,  the  root  or  primitive  of  pa"iZu>,  bap- 
tizo,  does  not  invariably  nor  necessarily  imply  immersion. 
But  derivatives  lose  some  of  the  force  of  their  primitives; 
hence,  even  if  bapto  invariably  and  necessarily  means  im- 
merse, it  follows  that  baptizo  may  mean  something  less  than 
immerse.  But  bapto,  the  primitive,  does  not  invariably 
mean  immerse;  therefore,  a  fortiori,  baptizo  does  not  in- 
variably mean  immerse. 

The  first  step  in  this  branch  of  the  argument  is  to  show 
that  bapto,  the  primitive,  does  not  invariably  and  necessarily 
mean  to  immerse.  The  more  learned  Baptists  now  admit 
that  bapto  means  to  stain,  to  dip  partially,  to  wet  slightly, 
to  dye,  &c,  without  any  reference  to  any  specific  and  in- 
variable mode.  "  And  he  was  clothed  with  a  vesture  dipped, 
(ftsfiafx/ievov,)  baptized  or  stained  in  blood."  Rev.  xix.  13.  A 
chieftain's  garments  are  not  stained  in  battle  by  immersing 
them  in  blood,  but  by  sprinkling  or  aspersion.  "  Who  is 
this  that  cometh  from  Edom,  with  dyed  garments  from 
Bozra?  Wherefore  art  thou  red  in  thine  apparel,  and  thy 
garments  like  him  that  treadcih  the  winepress  ?  I  have  trod- 
den the  wine  press  alone ;  and  of  the  people  there  was  none 
with  me;  for  I  will  tread  them  in  anger,  and  trample  them 
in  my  fury,  and  their  blood  shall  be  sprinkled  upon  my 
garments,  and  I  will  stain  all  my  raiment,"  Isa.  lxiii.  1-3 
To  the  same  effect  is  Matt.  xxvi.  23 :  "  He  that  dippeih 
(6  eiipail'aq)  his  hand  with  me  in  the  dish,"  &c;  which 
cannot  imply  a  total  immersion,  as  any  one  acquainted  with 
the  mode  of  eating  in  the  East  will  at  once  perceive.  And 
so  Dives  prayed  to  Abraham  to  send  Lazarus  that  he  might 
dip) — t3a-ri—  his  finger,  &c.     In  these  three  examples  from 


44 


THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 


the  Scriptures,  and  they  will  suffice,  nothing  like  the  idea 
of  entire  immersion  is  implied. 

Classical  authors  maintain  the  same  position.  In  the 
Battle  of  the  Frogs  and  Mice,  a  mouse  is  represented  as  dye- 
ing or  coloring — sfiaxTsro — the  lake  with  his  blood.  "To 
suppose  that  there  is  here  any  extravagant  allusion  to  the  literal 
immersion  or  dipping  of  a  lake,  is  a  monstrous  perversion  of 
taste.  The  lake  is  said  to  be  dyed,  not  to  be  dipped,  or 
poured,  or  sprinkled.  There  is  in  the  word  no  reference  to 
mode.  Had  Baptists  intrenched  themselves  here,  they 
would  have  saved  themselves  much  useless  toil,  and  much 
false  criticism,  without  straining  to  the  impeachment  of 
their  candor  or  their  taste.  What  a  monstrous  paradox  in 
rhetoric  is  the  figure  of  the  dipping  of  a  lake  in  the  blood  of 
a  mouse  !  Yet  Dr.  Gale  supposes  that  the  lake  was  dipped 
by  hyperbole.  The  literal  sense  he  says  is,  the  lake  was 
dipped  in  blood.  Never  was  there  such  a  figure.  The  lake 
is  not  said  to  be  dipped  in  blood,  but  to  be  dyed  with  blood." 
Carson  and  Cox,  on  Baptism,  p.  67.  Again,  "  Hippocrates 
employs  it  to  denote  dyeing,  by  dropping  the  dyeing  liquid 
on  the  thing  dyed — paTtrerai.  This  surely  is  not  dyeing  by 
dipping."  Ibid.  p.  60.  Again:  "In  Arian's  Expedition  of 
Alexander  the  Great — 'Nearchus  relates  that  the  Indians 
dye — fiaKTovTai — their  beards/  It  will  not  be  contended 
that  they  dyed  their  beards  by  immersion."  Ibid.  61.  Dr. 
Carson  also  observes,  "From  signifying  to  dip,  it  came  to 
signify  dye  by  dipping — and  afterward  from  dyeing  by  dip- 
ping, it  came  to  denote  dyeing  in  any  manner/'  P.  60. 
And  he  adds :  "  Use  is  always  superior  to  etymology  as  a 
witness  on  this  subject.  A  word  may  come  to  ENLARGE  its 
meaning  so  as  to  lose  sight  of  its  origin.  This  fact  must  be 
obvious  to  every  smatterer  in  philology. "  P.  62.  "Use," 
he  continues,  "is  the  sole  arbiter  of  language.  Ba^rw  sig- 
nifies to  dye  by  SPRINKLING,  as  properly  as  by  dipping, 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  45 


though  originally  it  was  confined  to  the  latter."  P.  63.  No 
stronger  or  more  candid  defence  of  our  argument  could  be 
expected  of  the  most  accomplished  paedobaptist.  All  that 
we  claim  is  here  candidly  conceded.  "This  is  a  fact,  and 
were  it  even  against  me,  I  could  not  but  admit  it."  P.  64. 
"What  fact?  that  bapto  denotes  "dyeing  in  any  manner." 
To  proceed  farther  is  useless. 

Admitting  that  bapto  invariably  and  necessarily  means 
immerse,  according  to  the  laws  of  etymology,  baptize,  one 
of  its  derivatives,  must  lose  some  of  the  force  of  its  primitive. 
But  we  have  shown  that  bapto  has  not  this  invariable  mean- 
ing, but  is  a  term  of  such  latitude  that  it  implies  any  mode 
or  manner,  according  to  its  use  in  various  authors.  Conse- 
quently, baptizo,  its  derivative,  cannot  be  restricted  to  one 
meaning :  like  its  primitive,  it  implies  any  mode  or  manner. 

Secondly.  But  we  pretend  not  to  settle  this  as  a  question 
wholly  of  etymology  and  probabilities.  We  have  positive 
facts  and  evidence  in  the  Scriptures,  that  baptizo  is  used  in 
the  sense  of  wash  or  purify,  which  we  shall  now  adduce. 

First.  The  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word,  as  it  is  used  in 
the  Scriptures,  with  reference  to  the  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  means  to  cleanse,  to  purify,  to  icash.  The  cleansing 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  conversion,  is  set  forth  under 
the  idea  of  a  baptism :  this  indeed  all  can  understand,  as  the 
plain  and  rational  meaning  of  the  word  in  its  gospel  sense. 

Secondly.  A  dispute  arose  among  the  disciples  of  John 
concerning  baptism  as  practised  by  Jesus  and  John.  "  Rabbi, 
he  that  was  with  thee  beyond  Jordan,  to  whom  thou  bearest 
witness,  behold  the  same  baptizeth,  and  all  men  come  to  him," 17 
The  question  in  dispute  here  was  "about  purifying,"  (v.  25,) 
and  hence,  with  regard  to  it,  the  disciples  of  John  referred 
to  Jesus  as  purifying  by  baptizing,  while  they  thought  that 

17  John  iii.  26. 


46  THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


John,  and  not  Jesus,  was  invested  with  authority  to  ad- 
minister baptism  as  the  rite  of  purification.  The  terms 
employed  are,  xaftapw/iod,  and  PaitriZetj  and  the  only  rational 
inference,  from  all  the  facts  in  the  case,  is,  that  they  are 
synonymous  in  this  instance;  and  if  the  force  of  the  word, 
in  its  religious  application,  be  determined  in  this  capital 
instance  to  be  purify,  then  it  has  this  force  in  all  cases  of  a 
religious  nature,  and  especially  when  employed  with  reference 
to  formal  initiation  into  the  church.  As  za&aipio,  or  the 
later  form,  xa&aptZa),  in  Jewish  services,  as  well  as  heathen 
rites,  meant  to  purify  from  the  pollution  of  guilt  by  expiatory 
sacrifices,  without  any  reference  to  any  invariable  mode,  we 
may  conclude  that,  in  this  instance  at  least,  fia-~iZu)  loses  all 
idea  of  mode,  and  means  to  purify :  and  so  in  all  cases  of  a 
religious  nature. 

Thirdly.  It  was  the  expectation  of  the  Jews  that  their 
Messiah  should  purify.  "Who  may  abide  the  day  of  his 
coming  ?  and  who  shall  stand  when  he  appeareth  ?  for  he  is 
like  a  refiner's  fire,  and  like  fuller's  soap.  And  he  shall  sit 
as  a  refiner  and  purifier  of  silver:  and  he  shall  purify  the 
sons  of  Levi,  and  purge  them  as  gold,  &c."18  "While  the 
whole  Jewish  nation  is  expecting  the  great  Purifier,  sud- 
denly it  is  rumored  throughout  Judea  that  he  is  come,  and 
forthwith  priests  and  Levites  go  out,  and  inquire  of  John, 
"Who  art  thou?"  And  when  he  denies  that  he  is  the  Mes- 
siah, then  the  question  is  very  naturally  proposed  to  him, 
"Why  baptizeth  thou  then,  if  thou  be  not  the  Christ."  ^ 
The  expectation  of  the  Jews,  and  the  evangelical  sense  we 
give  to  baptizo,  entirely  harmonize.  But  if  we  suppose  bap- 
tizo  here  means  immerse,  it  is  impossible  to  reconcile  such 
a  sense  with  the  prevailing  expectations,  and  the  prophetic 
references  of  the  Old  Testament  to  Christ  as  a  Purifier. 

i8  MaL  iii.  2-3.  19  John  i.  25. 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  47 


Fourthly.  The  outward  and  inward  baptism,  specifically 
referred  to  by  John,  can  be  harmonized  only  by  giving  bap- 
tize the  evangelical  sense  of  wash  or  purify.  "I  indeed 
baptize  you  with  water,  but  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the 
Holy  Ghost."  That  is,  in  a  ceremonial  sense,  I  indeed 
cleanse  you  with  water,  but  he  shall  purify  you  spiritually 
with  the  Holy  Ghost.  To  say  that  John  had  any  reference 
to  immersion  in  the  latter  case  is  absurd,  and  hence  we  may 
infer,  that  John  did  not  immerse  in  the  former  case.  Give 
to  laptizo  the  sense  of  purify,  and  at  once  the  prophecy  of 
Malachi,  the  baptism  of  John,  and  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  harmonize  in  the  most  exact  and  rational  manner. 

Fifthly.  The  reference  made  in  Heb.  ix.  10,  to  Mosaic 
purifications,  requires  that  we  give  the  meaning  wash, purify , 
to  baptizo,  "  Which  stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks  and 
divers  washings" — fiaitrurfwtq.  A  comparison  is  made  by  the 
Apostle  between  the  legal  typical  purifications  of  the  Jewish 
dispensation,  and  the  real,  moral  purifications  of  the  Spirit 
provided  by  Christ  under  the  Christian  dispensation.  The 
baptismois  here  referred  to,  such  as  gifts,  sacrifices,  the  blood 
of  sprinkling,  the  ashes  of  a  heifer,  all  relate  to  persons  and 
not  to  things.  But  throughout  the  scope  of  the  Mosaic 
ritual,  not  once  is  immersion  enjoined  upon  persons.     The 

original  Hebrew  word  73l0;  that  means  to  immerse,  is  not 
used  in  a  single  instance  where  washing  or  purifying  is  en- 
joined upon  persons,  but  in  every  such  case  the  word  j^lTl, 

which  means  to  wash  or  purify,  is  used.  In  a  word,  the 
whole  Mosaic  ritual,  in  its  application  to  personal  ablution, 
might  be  fulfilled  to  the  letter,  without  immersion  in  a  single 
instance.  That  Paul,  in  the  text  above,  refers  to  the  Mo- 
saic ritual,  in  its  application  to  persons,  and  not  to  things, 
may  be  proved  by  reference,  not  only  to  the  Jewish  cere- 
monial law,  but  to  what  he  says  above :  u  which  was  a  figure 


48  THE    MODE   OP   BAPTISM. 


for  the  time  then  present,  in  which  were  offered  both  gifts 
and  sacrifices,  that  could  not  make  him  that  did  the  service 
perfect,  as  pertaining  to  the  conscience."  (v.  9.)  Thns  the 
term  baptismois,  in  this  scripture,  must  mean  purifications, 
without  the  remotest  reference  to  immersion. 

Sixthly.  Several  other  instances: — The  baptism  of  St. 
Paul:  " Arise  and  be  baptized  and  wash  away  thy  sins."20 
The  purification  of  the  heart  is  here  typified  by  baptism. 
The  bloody  baptism  of  Christ :  It  is  evident  Christ  could  not 
have  been  immersed  in  his  own  blood,  and  the  only  rational 
meaning  that  can  be  given  to  baptizo  in  this  case,  is  a  sacra- 
ficial  purification,  and  this  was  done  by  the  outpouring  or 
shedding  of  his  own  blood.  The  baptism  of  the  church  at 
Rome  :  "  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized 
into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death?  Therefore 
we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death."21  And 
Col.  ii.  12 :  "Buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death,"  &c. 
In  these  passages,  nothing  can  be  proved  respecting  mode 
from  baptizo;  and  with  regard  to  the  word  ubury"  it  would 
have  been  used  had  sprinkling  or  any  other  mode  been 
specifically  mentioned.  The  burial  here  referred  to  is 
spiritual,  and  hence  the  baptism  here  mentioned  is  spiritual. 
And  what  is  spiritual  baptism  ?  It  is  the  destruction  of  sin 
and  the  purification  of  the  heart — it  embraces  those  bap- 
tismal influences  of  the  Spirit  that  give  a  spiritual  force  to 
the  will,  a  spiritual  clearness  to  the  understanding,  a  spiri- 
tual ardor  to  the  affections,  a  spiritual  energy  to  the  power 
of  faith,  and  an  exquisite  delicacy  to  the  conscience,  by 
which  we  become  dead  to  the  world,  and  alive  to  Grod. 
How  then  can  a  person  baptized  consent  to  sin  ?  This  view 
of  these  texts  perfectly  harmonizes  with  the  drift  of  the 
apostle's  argument.     If  mode,  in  any  sense,  be  implied  in 

20  Acts  xxii.  16.  21  Rom.  vi.  3-4. 


THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM.  49 


these  Scriptures,  it  must  be  analogous  to  that  mode  which 
the  Spirit  adopts,  and  that  is  sprinkling  or  pouring,  as  the 
Scriptures  invariably  teach;  immersion  is  out  of  the  question. 

It  may  be  added,  that  the  dogma  of  baptismal  regenera- 
tion originated  in  connecting  the  idea  of  purification,  with 
baptizo.  In  the  early  times  of  Christianity,  the  church 
began  to  sink  the  form  of  baptism  into  the  spirit  of  it,  and 
to  regard  that  as  a  condition  which  was  only  a  sign  and 
seal  of  regeneration.  It  would  have  been  impossible  ever  to 
confound  the  outward  with  the  inward  baptism,  if  baptism 
was  not  symbolical  of  spiritual  purification — impossible 
indeed  ever  to  invest  mere  immersion  with  the  idea  of  spiri- 
tual birth.  The  Romanists,  Puseyites,  and  Campbellites 
seize  upon  the  same  passages  of  Scripture,  in  defence  of  their 
pernicious  errors,  that  many  of  the  early  Fathers  adduced 
in  defence  of  baptismal  regeneration;  and  the  Campbellites 
themselves,  therefore,  when  they  attempt  to  prove  the  notion 
of  immersion  from  the  Fathers,  at  the  same  time  prove  from 
their  own  witnesses,  that  baptizo  means  to  purify. 

From  these  considerations,  the  inference  is  easy :  external 
baptism,  the  outward  sign,  should  represent  the  inward 
cleansing,  and  hence  icater  is  the  element  used  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  external  baptism.  Likewise  the  mode  of 
external  baptism  should  correspond  as  nearly  as  possible  to 
the  mode  of  spiritual  baptism  adopted  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
The  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  a  real,  indisputable 
baptism,  visible  to  the  senses,  seen  by  John  the  Baptist, 
and  the  multitudes  at  the  Jordan,  by  the  apostles,  and  by 
Peter  and  the  brethren  in  the  instance  of  Cornelius.  And 
what  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  these  instances.  Let 
John  the  Baptist,  who  used  the  word,  answer :  "  He  shall 
baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost."23     Our  Lord  himself, 


22  Matt.  iii.  11;  Mark  i.  8;  Luke  iii.  16. 
5 


50  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


who  was  the  subject  of  baptism,  shall  also  answer:  "Ye 
shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days 
hence."  **  That  we  may  fix  the  sense  of  the  word  baptize 
as  to  'mode,  in  the  above  instances,  consider  the  popular 
meaning  of  synonymous  words,  which  the  sacred  writers, 
under  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  employed,  in 
reference  to  the  same  events.  "Behold,  I  send  the  promise 
of  my  Father  upon  you :  but  tarry  you  in  the  city  of  Jeru- 
salem until  ye  be  endued  with  power  from  on  high/'24 
Here  our  Lord,  by  using  a  word  synonymous  with  baptize, 
sets  forth  the  idea  of  spiritual  baptism,  altogether  inconsistent 
with  immersion  or  plunging.  "And  suddenly  there  came 
from  heaven,  and  appeared  unto  them  cloven  tongues  like 
as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them." 25  Here  Luke 
describes  the  manner  in  which  the  apostles  were  baptized 
according  to  the  promise  of  Jesus.  And  so  Peter  also  bears 
witness :  "  The  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them,  as  on  us  at  the 
beginning."9*  Peter  again:  "God  gave  them  the  Holy 
Ghost,  even  as  he  did  unto  us." 27  The  prophet  Joel  bears 
testimony  respecting  the  mode  of  the  baptism  of  the  apostles 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  "  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the 
last  days,  saith  God,  I  will  pour  out  of  my  spirit,"  &C28 
Take  other  instances:  "I  saw  the  Spirit  descending  from 
heaven  like  a  dove,  and  it  abode  upon  him."29  "Jesus 
having  received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  hath  shed  forth  this,  which  ye  now  see  and  hear." 30 
"That  they  might  receive  the  Holy  Ghost;  for  as  yet  he 
was  fallen  upon  none  of  them."31  "God  anointed 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost."32  "The  Holy 
Ghost  fell  on  all."33     "The  Holy  Ghost  sent  down  from 


23  Acts  i.  5.  2i  Luke  xxiv.  49.  25  Acts  ii.  2,  3.  *  Acts  xi.  15. 

»  Acts  xv.  8.        2*  Acts  ii.  16-17.  »  John  i.  32.  30  Acts  ii.  33. 

31  Acts  viii.  15,  16.  «  Acts  x.  38.  33  Acts  x.  44. 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  51 


Heaven."  34  "  Sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise."35 
In  all  these  instances,  we  have  the  words,  descending? 
coining ;  giving ;  falling ;  shedding ;  pouring ;  sitting;  abid 
ing ;  anointing;  sealing; — invested  with  the  very  sam* 
signification  of  baptize  when  reference  is  had  to  the  mode  ot 
spiritual  baptism.  Not  in  one  instance  does  the  synonymom 
word  support  the  idea  of  immersion  or  plunging  as  the  mode 
of  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  therefore  the  word  bap 
tizo  cannot  mean  immersion  when  it  is  used  with  reference 
to  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  hence  so  far  from 
being  restricted  to  the  sense  of  immersion,  as  the  Baptists 
affirm,  it  does  not  refer  to  immersion  at  all.  In  one  instance, 
the  prediction  of  Christ  is,  "Ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost;"  and,  "the  Holy  Ghost  was  poured  out  upon 
them,"  is  the  fulfilment.  In  another  instance,  "Imlljyour 
out  of  my  Spirit,"  is  the  prediction  of  Joel ;  and  "they  were 
all  filed  with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  is  the  fulfilment.  Not 
in  one  single  instance  in  the  Scriptures,  we  believe,  does  the 
synonymous  word  support  the  doctrine  of  immersion.  Our 
conclusion  then  is,  that  as  the  evangelical  mode  of  spiritual 
baptism  is  not  immersion,  immersion  is  not  the  evangelical 
sense  of  baptizo.  But  as  the  inward  spiritual  baptism  is  set 
forth  under  the  ideas  of  descending,  falling,  pouring,  shed- 
ding, the  outward  formal  baptism  by  water  should  corre- 
spond as  nearly  as  possible  to  the  mode  of  baptism  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  The  manner  of  baptism  adopted  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  the  highest  standard  for  the  mode  of  outward  bap- 
tism. If  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  the  divine  administrator,  bap- 
tize by  pouring  or  shedding  his  cleansing  influences  upon 
the  heart,  surely  external  baptism  by  pouring  or  sprinkling 
must  be  most  proper,  since  it  is  in  exact  conformity  to  the 
inward  spiritual  baptism.     As  we  have  divine  authority, 

31  1  Peter  i.  12.  M  Eph.  i.  13. 


52  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


both  in  word  and  action ,  for  pouring  and  sprinkling,  as  the 
meaning  of  Laptizo,  we  have  the  highest  authority  for  adopt- 
ing sprinkling  and  pouring  as  the  modes  in  administering 
external  baptism.  The  resemblance  is  set  forth  in  a  striking 
manner,  both  by  John  and  our  Lord.  "I  indeed  (says 
John)  baptize  you  with  water,  but  he  (Christ)  shall  baptize 
you  with  the  Holy  Ghost."36  "  John  baptized  with  water, 
but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost."37  Here  no 
differeuce  respecting  the  mode  is  even  alluded  to ;  and  as  it 
has  been  determined  that  spiritual  baptism  is  administered 
by  pouring,  shedding,  &c,  the  mode  of  outward  baptism  is 
so  easily  inferred,  that  it  is  not  even  mentioned.  The  Holy 
Ghost  shall  be  poured  upon  you,  in  the  same  manner  as  John 
poured,  shed,  let  fad,  water  upon  you — and  the  manner  of 
John's  baptism  is  at  once  determined.  The  Holy  Ghost 
was  poured  upon  the  apostles :  in  the  same  manner,  we  con- 
clude, that  the  apostles,  in  baptizing,  poured,  shed,  let  fall 
water  upon  the  converts,  and  the  mode  of  Christian  baptism 
is  at  once  determined.  There  is  nothing  in  this  conclusion 
offensive  to  taste,  contrary  to  fact,  repulsive  to  decency, 
opposed  to  analogy,  or  in  violation  of  the  plainest  rules  of 
language. 

Secondly.  Consider  some  instances  from  the  Scriptures 
of  the  application  of  the  word  baptize  in  reference  to  water. 

We  are  informed  that  Nebuchadnezzar  was  "  baptized  with 
the  dew  of  heaven." 3S  In  the  thirty-third  verse  it  is  said,  the 
body  of  the  Babylonian  monarch  "was  wet  with  the  dew  of 
heaven."  In  the  Septuagint  we  have  the  original  Greek : 
and  Trtq  dpoaoo,  ruo  oupavou  to  ffw/xa  avrou  eftd<fT),  apo  tes 
drosou,  tou  ouranou  to  soma  autou  ebaphe  ;  and  in  the  Vul- 
gate we  have,  et  rore  coeli  conspcrgatur — sprinkled  with  the 

96  Matt.  iii.  11.  37  Acts  i.  5. 

^  Compare  Dan.  iv.  23,  25,  33. 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  53 


dew  of  heaven.  In  this  instance,  the  person  of  the  royal 
subject  was  baptized  by  the  descending,  the  falling  of  the 
dew  in  the  night.  The  king  was  certainly  not  immersed 
in  the  dew,  for  two  reasons :  the  condensation  of  the  vapors 
of  the  night  never  could  have  produced  dew  of  a  sufficient 
depth  to  immerse  him;  and  in  the  second  place,  had  he  been 
immersed,  he  would  have  been  destroyed. 

Again :  "I  would  not  that  ye  be  ignorant  how  that  all 
our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the 
sea;  and  were  all  baptized — i^a-riaa^ro,  ebaptisanto — unto 
Moses  in  the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea." 39  Here  the  Israelites 
pass  "under  the  cloud,"  "through  the  sea,"  "on  dry  land," 
and  consequently,  the  baptismal  element  descended  from  the 
cloud  above — God  himself  being  the  administrator.  Im- 
mersion on  dry  land  is  an  absolute  impossibility,  and  hence, 
in  this  instance  at  least,  baptizo  does  not  mean  immerse. 

Once  more :  "  And  when  the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he  marvelled 
that  he  (Christ)  had  not  first  washed — spa—iGOr, — ebaptisihe 
— before  dinner." 40  "  And  when  they  came  from  the 
market,  except  they  wash — fta-Tcws-at — baptisontai — they 
eat  not."  Mark  vii.  4.  The  meaning  of  the  term  here  is  a 
ceremonial  purification,  a  mere  refining  upon  the  Mosaic 
ordinances  concerning  ablution,  and  has  no  reference  to 
physical  cleanliness.  This  is  the  intrinsic  and  specific 
meaning  here,  and  about  this  there  can  be  no  controversy  - 
The  second  point  is — what  was  the  mode  of  this  ceremonial 
customary  purification  among  the  Pharisees  and  Jews  gene- 
rally? We  maintain  that  pouring  was  the  mode  employed. 
"Here  is  Elisha,  the  son  of  Shaphat,  who  poured  water  on 
the  hands  of  Elijah."  41  The  same  custom  prevailed  in  the 
days  of  Christ,  and  continues  still  in  the  East,  for  customs 

yj  1  Cor.  x.  1,  2.  «  Luke  xi.  38. 

41  2  Kings  iii.  11. 
5* 


54  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 


seldom  or  never  change  in  the  East.  "The  table  being 
removed/'  says  Pitts,  "  before  they  rise  from  the  ground  on 
which  they  sit,  a  slave  or  servant,  who  stands  attending  on 
them  with  a  cup  of  water  to  give  them  drink,  steps  into  the 
middle  with  a  basin,  or  copper  pot  of  water,  something  like 
a  coffee-pot,  and  a  little  soap,  and  lets  the  water  run  upon 
their  hands  one  after  another  as  they  sit.  Such  service,  it 
appears,  Elisha  performed  for  Elijah."  D'Ohsson  observes, 
"The  Mussulman  is  generally  seated  on  the  edge  of  a  sofa 
with  a  pewter  or  copper  vessel,  lined  with  tin,  placed  before 
him  upon  a  round  piece  of  red  cloth,  to  prevent  the  carpet 
or  mat  from  being  wet :  a  servant,  kneeling  on  the  ground, 
p>ours  out  the  water  for  his  master,  another  holds  the  cloth 
destined  for  the  purification.  The  person  who  purifies  him- 
self begins  by  baring  the  arms  as  far  as  the  elbow.  As  he 
washes  his  hands,  mouth,  nostrils,  face,  arms,  &c,  he  re- 
peats the  proper  prayers.  It  is  probable  that  Mohammed 
followed  on  this  subject  the  book  of  Leviticus."  "The 
Osmanlis  are  remarkable  for  their  attention  to  cleanliness. 
When  they  wash,  the  water  is  poured  from  a  vase  upon  the 
hands  over  a  wide  basin — they  never  make  use  of  a  basin 
or  a  tub  to  wash  in,  as  is  the  practice  elsewhere.  It  is  a 
common  observation  among  the  Osmanlis,  that  cleanliness 
corresponds  with  the  purity  and  integrity  of  mind."  (Report 
of  Mr.  Oscanyan's  Lectures  on  Constantinople,  contained  in 
Boston  Recorder,  Jan.  4,  1839.)  Certainly  our  Lord  was 
not  expected  to  immerse  or  plunge  himself  before  dinner; 
he  simply  declined  the  customary  compliment  of  the  Jews, 
which  was  paid  to  the  guest  by  pouring  water  on  the  feet, 
and  hands  also.  Jesus  did  most  graciously  accept  this 
attention  on  another  occasion.  "And  he  turned  to  the 
woman,  and  said  unto  Simon,  Seest  thou  this  woman?  I 
entered  into  thine  house,  thou  gavest  me  no  water  for  my 
feet,  but  she  hath  washed  my  feet  with  tears,  and  wiped 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  55 


them  with  the  hairs  of  her  head."  **  Dr.  Alexander  Carson 
replies,  that  "  people  of  distinction  might  have  water  poured 
on  their  hands  by  servants,  but  it  is  not  likely  that  this  was 
the  common  practice  of  the  body  of  the  people  in  any  nation."  43 
Very  well,  then  the  water  was  poured  upon  the  hands  in 
the  present  case,  for  Christ  was  regarded  as  a  person  of 
"distinction,"  and  was  the  guest  of  a  distinguished  person, 
namely,  "a  Pharisee."  So  that  Dr.  Carson  himself  con- 
cedes that  bcijptizo,  in  this  case,  means  to  pour,  as  well  as 
to  wash,  and  consequently,  he  contributes  in  deciding  the 
mode  as  well  as  the  meaning  of  baptism.  "We  return  to  the 
Old  Testament:  "As  they  who  bare  the  ark  were  come 
unto  Jordan,  and  the  feet  of  the  priests  that  bare  the  ark 
were  dipped  Ipd-cpr^a*,  ebaphesan — in  the  brim  of  the 
water."  ** — elq  [±epoq  too  vdazoq,  eis  meros  tou  hudatos.  The 
feet  of  the  priests  but  touched  the  brim,  the  edge  of  the 
water,  when  the  water  recoiled  and  convolved  "in  a  heap," 
as  the  priests  stood  firm  on  dry  ground,  in  the  midst  of 
Jordan*5 

Once  more:  "As  foi  the  living  bird,  he  shall  take  it, 
and  the  cedar  wood,  and  the  scarlet,  and  the  hyssop,  and 
shall  dip — j3d(^'£i,  bapsei — them  and  the  living  bird  in  the 
blood  of  the  bird,"  &c.48  No  bird  used  in  the  Jewish  sacri- 
fices could  yield  blood  enough  to  render  the  immersion  of  the 
I  icing  bird,  the  cedar  wood,  the  scarlet,  and  the  hyssop  in  it 
possible,  and  hence,  in  this  case,  the  word  baptize  cannot 
mean  to  immerse  or  overwhelm.  Again,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, "  Send  Lazarus,  that  he  may  dip — pd.1J.1r),  bapse — the 


42  Luke  vii.  44. 

43  Carson  on  Baptism,  p.  10.  Dr.  Carson  is  an  Irish  Baptist  minister, 
and  was  once  a  paedobaptist,  but  having  embraced  the  opposite  views, 
he  wr^te  a  work  on  baptism,  which  the  Baptists  hold  in  the  highest  esti- 
mation. 

44  Josn.  iii.  15.  *  Josh.  iii.  17.  ^  Lev.  xiv.  6. 


56  THE   MODE   OP   BAPTISM. 


tip  of  his  finger/'  &c,47  Of  course,  the  whole  finger  was  not 
to  be  immersed — only  the  tip  of  the  finger.  "  He  to  whom 
I  shall  give  the  sop  when  I  have  dipped — /Sac/'aq,  bapsas — 
it." 48  The  meaning  here  cannot  be,  that  the  sop  was  wholly 
immersed.  "  He  was  clothed  in  a  vesture  dipped — fiefiaiiixlvov^ 
bcbammenon — in  blood." 49  The  idea  cannot  be  tolerated, 
that  the  garment  of  Christ  was  immersed  in  blood.  "The 
tcasling — fia-riGiiohq,  baptismous — of  cups,  and  pots,  and 
brazen  vessels,  and  tables."50  "The  foundation  of  the 
doctrine  of  baptisms"51 — ,3a-TL<T/j.aJv}  baptismon.  "Which 
stood  in  meats  and  drinks  and  divers  washings"  52 — fia-Tta/jiolq, 
baptismois.  Now  it  is  evident,  that  various  modes  of  wash- 
ing are  here  intended.  It  may  be  admitted,  that  the  cups 
were  immersed,  though  not  necessarily  so,  in  order  to  be 
washed.  But  were  the  "pots  and  brazen  vessels,"  and  the 
cumbersome  "tables,"  fifteen  or  twenty  feet  long  by  four 
feet  broad,  and  about  four  feet  high,  also  immersed  ?  Be- 
sides, the  doctrine  of  baptisms  is  mentioned  in  the  plural 
number.  And  any  one  but  partially  acquainted  with  the 
ancient  regulations  and  ceremonial  ablutions  of  the  Jewish 
dispensation,  knows  that  the  greater  part  of  them  had 
nothing  to  do  with  immersion. 

Again,  in  the  Old  Testament,  "  And  Elisha  sent  a  messen- 
ger unto  him,  saying,  Go  and  wash  in  Jordan  seven  times."  M 
This  he  did,  verse  14th.  "Then  went  he  down,  and  dipped 
— ij3a~zi<ja.To,  ebaptisato — himself  seven  times  in  Jordan, 
according  to  the  saying  of  the  man  of  God."  Here  baptizo 
clearly  means  to  icash;  and  it  is  by  no  means  clear  that 
Naaman  subjected  himself  to  a  total  immersion.  "But 
Naaman  was  wroth,  and  went  away,  and  said,  Behold  I 
thought,  he  would  surely  come  unto  me,  and  stand,  and  cal] 


47  Luke  xvi.  24.        4S  John  xiii.  26.        49  Rev.  xix.  13.       ^  Mark  vii.  4 
51  Heb.  vi.  2.  52  Heb.  ix.  10.  »  2  Kings  v.  10. 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  57 


on  the  name  of  the  Lord  his  God,  and  strike  his  hand  over 
the  place,  and  recover  the  leper."  5i  "Well  assured  are  we 
of  one  thing,  that  the  word  here  means  to  wash,  which  is 
the  meaning  contended  for  in  this  discussion.  To  meet  this 
difficulty,  Dr.  Carson  lays  down  the  following  canon:  aIn 
certain  situations  two  words,  or  even  several  words,  may 
with  equal  propriety  fill  the  same  place,  though  they  are  all 
essentially  different  in  their  signification." 55  In  the  above 
example,  therefore,  the  meaning  of  Xouw,  louo,  to  wash,  may 
be  expressed  by  baptizo;  and  consequently,  baptizo  means 
to  wash.  Dr.  Carson's  canon  is  fatal  to  his  criticisms — the 
result,  no  doubt,  of  the  classical  research  of  many  years. 
He  unequivocally  allows,  that  baptizo  and  louo  may,  "in 
certain  situations,  with  equal  propriety,  fill  the  same  place," 
and  hence  they  may  mean  what  other  words  mean,  "  though 
they  are  essentially  different  in  their  significations."  In 
this  single  sentence,  Dr.  Carson  saves  others  the  pains  of 
correcting  his  criticisms,  himself  offsetting  them  all  at  a 
single  stroke,  by  adopting  a  canon  which  would  give  baptizo 
the  meaning  to  wash,  if  it  had  not  inherently  this  meaning. 
That  I  have  fairly  interpreted  and  applied  the  canon  of 
Dr.  Carson,  take  his  own  words.  Referring  to  the  case  of 
Naaman,  he  says,  "This  passage  is  a  complete  illustration 
of  my  canon.  The  two  words  Xoou)  and  $a--lX,a>  are  here 
used  interchangeably,  yet  they  are  not  of  the  same  significa- 
tion." 56  In  the  name  of  common  sense,  how  can  words  be 
used  interchangeably  that  have  not  in  some  respect  the 
same  signification  ?  If  words  used  interchangeably  have  not 
the  same  signification,  then  Xaaman  disobeyed  the  prophet, 
and  the  sacred  history  of  the  transaction  is  false ;  but  if  words 
used  interchangeably  have  the  same  meaning,  then  baptizo 


64  2  Kings  v.  11.  K  Carson  and  Cox  on  Baptism,  p.  81. 

54  Ibid.  p.  87. 


THE    MODE   OE   BAPTISM. 


and  louo  in  this  case  mean  the  same  thing,  and  therefore 
baptism  means  to  wash.  Dr.  Carson  again,  on  same  page : 
"  The  words  baptizo  and  louo  have  their  own  peculiar  mean- 
ings even  here,  as  well  as  anywhere  else,  without  the  smallest 
confusion.  To  baptize  is  not  to  wash;  but  to  baptize  in  a 
river,  or  any  pure  water,  implies  washing,  and  may  be  used 
for  it  in  certain  situations.  If  Naaman  clipped  himself  in 
Jordan  he  was  washed."  That  is,  baptizo,  implies  washing, 
and  may  be  used  for  it  in  certain  cases.  Of  course  then 
baptizo  may  mean  to  wash  in  a  gospel  sense.  Could  the 
most  explicit  declarations  of  all  the  psedobaptist  churches 
be  clearer  than  this  admission  of  Dr.  Carson  ?  Placing  our- 
selves then  by  the  side  of  Dr.  Carson,  with  him,  and  Elisha, 
we  determine  the  meaning  of  baptizo  to  be  to  wash.  We 
make  one  more  remark. 

Dr.  Carson  has  given  a  latitude  to  the  meaning  of  these 
words,  bapto  and  baptizo,  by  his  canon,  which  no  psedobap- 
tist has  ever  dared  to  assume.  And  this  is  the  more  re- 
markable, when  it  is  considered  that  he  had  spent  so  much 
labor  to  prove,  that  one  of  these  words  has  a  univocal  mean- 
ing, and  the  other  but  two  meanings.  On  the  principle  of 
his  canon,  " circumstances' '  and  "situations"  alone  can  de- 
termine the  number  of  meanings  inherent  in  words,  and 
consequently,  language  has  no  fixed  laws  of  interpretation. 
In  vain  does  Dr.  Carson,  in  his  subsequent  conclusions  re- 
specting the  abstract,  primary,  and  invariable  meaning  of 
these  words,  cry  out,  "decisive"  "irresistible,"  &c.  He 
has  forestalled  his  future  progress.  This  ordinance,  so  well 
loaded  and  directed,  sweeps  away  his  preceding  labors,  and 
when  ruin  is  complete  in  that  direction,  he  wheels  it  around, 
and  keeps  up  a  perpetual  and  destructive  fire  throughout  his 
succeeding  march.  What  does  it  avail  him  now  to  marshal 
Hippocrates,  Polybius,  Dio,  Porphyry,  Diodorus  Siculus, 
Plutarch,  Lucian,  Strabo,  Josephus,  and  many  other  ancient 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  59 


authorities,  since  his  canon,  levelled  with  fatal  precision, 
pours  its  thunder  into  the  bosom  of  his  beloved  and  venerated 
antiquity?  Besides,  these  very  authorities,  in  some  cases, 
give,  with  Elisha,  the  meaning  to  icash  to  baptizo,  as  Dr. 
Carson  himself  shall  prove.  "  There  are  instances,"  says  he, 
"in  which  the  word  is  translated  by  some  wash,  and  in 
which  the  general  meaning  may  be  thus  well  enough  ex- 
pressed in  a  free  version." 57  And  yet  in  the  very  next  sen- 
tence, in  violation  of  all  consistency,  he  absolutely  cancels 
this  admission.  "Still  however,"  he  continues,  "the  word, 
even  in  such  situations,  does  not  express  the  idea  of  wash- 
ing, and  has  its  own  peculiar  meaning  of  mode,  the  idea  of 
washing  being  only  a  consequence  from  the  dipping."  If 
the  word  does  not  express  the  idea  of  washing,  how  then  is 
it  "  translated  by  some"  to  icash  ?  If  it  does  not  express 
the  idea  of  washing,  how  can  "  icash  be  well  enough  ex- 
pressed in  a  free  version?"  Dr.  Carson  saw  this  difficult)-; 
and  so  we  are  not  surprised  to  see  him,  probably  before  the 
paper  is  dry  before  him,  write  down  a  recantation  of  his  last 
inconsistency.  Hear  him :  "  Xow  as  I  am  pledged  to  show 
that  the  word  does  not  mean  to  icash  in  any  manner"  &c. 
In  any  manner?  Why,  just  above,  he  allows,  that  "wash- 
ing is  a  consequence  from  the  dipping."  Is  not  dipping  a 
"manner"  or  mode  of  washing!  "Pledged"  to  contradict 
and  refute  himself?  On  another  point,  already  examined, 
I  -will  just  here  refer  to  Dr.  Carson  as  evidence.  That  bap- 
tizo, when  referring  to  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  on 
the  heart,  means  to  icash,  take  the  following  testimony: 
"The  Spirit  is  said  to  be  poured  out,  not  because  there  is 
any  actual  pouring,  which  is  represented  by  pouring  out 
water  in  baptism,  but  from  the  resemblance  between  the  effects 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  those  of  water."  bi     Then  baptizo, 


"'  Ibid  p.  98.  «  Ibid.  p.  165. 


60  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 


when  referring  to  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  means 
to  wash  or  purify,  which  is  all  we  contend  for  at  present, 
and  which  Dr.  Carson  admits — although  he  had  declared 
that  baptizo  does  "not  mean  to  wash  in  any  manner.''  At 
the  same  time  however,  he  endeavors  to  destroy  the  resem 
blance  between  the  mode  of  the  application  of  the  Spirit's 
influences,  and  the  mode  of  the  use  of  water.  "  Baptism, 
whatever  be  the  mode,  cannot  represent  either  the  manner 
of  conveying  the  Spirit  or  his  operations  on  the  soul. 
Though  there  is  a  real  communication  of  the  Spirit,  there  is 
no  real  or  literal  baptism."59  These  are  mere  assumptions, 
made  without  a  particle  of  proof  adduced  to  sustain  them. 
But  Dr.  Carson  shall  again  refute  his  own  position.  "But 
though  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  figurative  bap- 
tism; yet  as  respects  the  transactions  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, there  was  a  real  baptism  in  the  emblems  of  the  Spirit." 60 
Indeed !  and  what  was  the  mode  of  this  real  emblematical 
baptism?  Dr.  Carson  says,  in  the  next  sentence,  "the  dis- 
ciples were  immersed  into  the  Holy  Spirit  by  the  abundance 
of  his  gifts,  and  they  were  literally  covered  with  wind  and 
fire."  Immersed  into  the  Holy  Spirit!  Not  at  all — but 
granted.  And  then  they  were  immersed  by  pouring,  for 
pouring  was  the  mode  of  baptism  adopted  by  the  Spirit  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost. 61  Just  one  remark  here  : — Is  it  not 
probable,  that  the  apostles  who  had  first  been  baptized  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  by  pouring,  adopted  pouring  as  the  mode 
of  external  baptism  in  the  case  of  the  three  thousand,  who, 

W  Ibid.  p.  164.  60  Ibid.  p.  168. 

61  Dr.  Gale  himself,  in  his  ''reflections  on  ^Vall,"  admits  that  "  the  word 
baptizo,  perhaps,  does  not  so  necessarily  express  the  action  of  putting 
under  water,  as  in  general  a  thing  being  in  that  condition,  no  matter  how 
it  comes  so,  whether  it  is  put  into  the  water,  or  the  water  comes  over  it." 
"Wall.  vol.  iii.  122.  Consequently,  as  the  apostles,  according  to  Dr.  Car- 
son, were  baptized  by  pouring  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  pouring  is  a 
proper  "  action"  of  baptism. 


THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM.  61 


the  same  day  believed  and  were  initiated  into  the  Christian 
church?  These  emblems  of  the  Spirit  were  sensible  and 
external;  and  as  they  were  miraculous,  concomitant  circum- 
stances of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  idea  of  pour- 
ing is  suggested  as  appropriate  and  consistent  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  initiating  sacrament  of  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion. Dr.  Carson,  in  explaining  the  meaning  of  the  word 
when  it  refers  to  the  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  discards 
all  idea  of  mode,  and  considers  it  only  as  expressing  the 
purifying  effects  of  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit — and 
yet  for  more  than  150  pages,  he  endeavors  to  convince  his 
readers,  that  baptizo  expresses  mode  only,  and  means  to  dip, 
and  only  to  dip.  But  when  it  refers  to  the  agency  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  he  tells  you,  it  has  no  reference  to  the  mode  of 
influence,  but  to  the  results  of  influence.  Now  if  baptizo 
has  but  one  meaning,  and  that  meaning  is  to  dip — and  if 
baptizo,  in  the  example  before  us,  had  no  reference  to  mode, 
but  to  the  "effects," — then  it  means  nothing  when  it  refers 
to  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  if  spiritual  baptism 
does  not  imply  mode,  neither  does  external  baptism;  but 
baptizo,  when  it  refers  to  spiritual  baptism,  as  in  the  case 
above,  always  suggests  the  mode,  and  therefore  the  analogous 
mode  of  external  baptism  should  be  adopted. 

As  the  critical  inquiries  of  Dr.  Carson  have  great  weight 
with  the  Baptists,  we  shall  further  consider  them.  They 
completely  refute  his  own  position.  The  sum  of  his  con- 
clusions may  be  stated  in  his  own  words: — "1st.  Bar.rio, 
except  when  it  signifies  to  dye,  denotes  mode,  and  nothing 
but  mode.  2d.  Ba-rw  and  (jarzri^w  are  exactly  the  same 
in  meaning,  as  to  increase  or  diminution  of  the  action.  That 
the  one  is  more  or  less  than  the  other,  as  to  mode  or  fre- 
quency, is  a  groundless  conceit.  3d.  There  is  one  import- 
ant difference.  Ba-rw  is  never  used  to  denote  the  ordinance 
of  baptism,  and  fiaxriZw  never  signifies  to  dye.     The  primi- 


62  THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


tive  word  has  two  meanings,  the  primary  to  dip,  the  second- 
ary to  dye.  But  the  derivative  is  formed  to  modify  the 
primary  alone.  4th.  Bapto  means  also  to  dye.  And 
although  this  meaning  arose  from  the  mode  of  dyeing  by 
dipping,  yet  the  word  has  come  by  appropriation  to  denote 
dyeing  without  reference  to  mode.  As  this  point  is  of  material 
consequence  in  this  controversy,  I  shall  establish  it  by 
examples  that  put  it  beyond  question.  Nothing  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  words  is  more  common,  than  to  enlarge  or 
diminish  their  signification.  Ideas  not  originally  included 
are  often  affixed,  while  others  drop  ideas  originally  inserted. 
In  this  way,  ,3a^Tw,  from  signifying  mere  mode,  came  to  be 
applied  to  a  certain  operation  usually  performed  in  that 
mode.  From  signifying  to  dip,  it  came  to  signify  dyeing  by 
dipping,  because  this  was  the  way  in  which  things  were 
usually  dyed.  And  afterward,  from  dyeing  by  dipping,  it 
came  to  denote  dyeing  in  any  manner.  A  like  process  may 
be  shown  in  the  history  of  a  thousand  other  words."  This 
statement  of  his  views  clearly,  we  think,  overthrows  his  own 
theory.  Upon  the  same  ground,  on  which  he  extends  or 
diminishes  the  meaning  of  bapto,  he  can  likewise  extend  the 
meaning  of  baptizo,  and  a  thousand  other  words.  For  as 
the  idea  of  mode  is  secondary  and  non-essential  when  bapto 
is  used  in  the  sense  of  dyeing,  so  the  idea  of  mode  is  second- 
ary and  non-essential  when  baptizo,  the  derivative  of  bapto, 
is  applied  to  the  sacrament  of  baptism.  As  bapto,  from 
dyeing  by  dipping  comes  to  denote  dyeing  in  any  manner, 
so  baptizo  from  baptizing  by  dipping,  comes  to  denote  bap- 
tizing ix  any  manner.62     This  is  conclusive. 

62  The  judgment  of  Professor  Stuart,  as  a  biblical  critic,  is  of  the 
highest  reputation  in  the  United  States.  He  says  of  Dr.  Carson,  "He 
lays  down  some  very  adventurous  positions,  in  respect  to  one  meaning, 
and  one  only,  of  words,  which,  as  it  seems  to  me,  every  lexicon  on  earth 
contradicts,  and  must  ahcays  contradict."  On  Mode  of  Baptism,  p,  100. 


THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM.  (53 


Thirdly.  We  advance  one  step  farther  in  this  investiga- 
tion. The  word  baptism,  as  it  is  used  in  Scripture,  cannot 
be  restricted  to  one  invariable  meaning;  it  means  to  dip, 
imbue,  drench,  soak,  overwhelm,  pour,  sprinkle,  to  wash.  If 
it  could  be  restricted  to  any  one  of  these  meanings,  then  it 
might  be  used  synonymously  with  all  the  rest.  "Send 
Lazarus,  that  he  may  dip  the  tip  of  his  finger  in  water" — 
plunge  the  tip  of  his  finger  !  "Judas,  who  plunges  his  hand 
with  me  in  the  dish."  "The  "Word  of  God  was  clothed  in  a 
vesture  plunged  in  blood  \"  "Our  fathers  were  baptized  in 
the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea" — plunged  in  the  sea,  when  they 
were  on  "dry  land!"  and  in  the  cloud,  when  they  were 
under  the  cloud  !  Pharaoh  and  all  his  hosts  were  over- 
whelmed in  the  sea,  but  yet  they  were  not  baptized.  We 
shall  now  show  by  many  examples,  that  the  word  baptism, 
as  it  is  used  in  the  Scriptures,  has  many  different  significa- 
tions as  to  mode. 

First.  In  the  sense  of  dip,  or  partial  immersion:  "Ye 
shall  dip  a  bunch  of  hyssop  in  the  blood."63  "The  priest 
shall  dip  his  finger  in  the  blood,  and  sprinkle  it."  64  "  The 
priest  shall  dip  his  finger."  65  "  Let  Asher  dip  his  foot  in 
oil."  66  "  The  feet  of  the  priests  were  dipped  in  the  brim 
of  the  water."  B7  "  Jonathan  dipped  the  end  of  his  rod  in 
a  honeycomb."  6s  "  Thy  foot  may  be  dipped  in  blood,  and 
the  tongue  of  the  dogs  in  the  same."  69  In  all  these  in- 
stances, nothing  more  can  be  intended  than  a  partial  im- 


This  decision  of  Professor  Stuart,  Dr.  Carson  himself  admits,  further 
on,  p.  44. 

63  Ex.  xii.  22.       w  Lev.  iv.  6.       65  Lev.  iv.  17.         «  Deut.  xxxiii.  24. 

67  Josh.  iii.  15.         6S  1  Sam.  xiv.  27.         69  Ps.  lxviii.  23. 

70  Dr.  Gale  admits,  that  "  the  word  baptizo  does  not  necessarily  imply 
a  total  IMMERSION  or  dipping  the  whole  thing  spoken  of  ALL  OVER, 
which  I  readily  allow."     (Wall,  vol.  iii.  147.) 


64  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


.  Secondly.  In  the  sense  of  overwhelming.  "  Can  you 
be  baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with  ?"71 — 
overwhelmed.  "  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with/'72 — 
overwhelmed. 

Thirdly.  In  the  sense  of  staining. 

"Dyed  attire  upon  their  heads. "73 

Fourthly.  In  the  sense  of  pouring. 

To  what  has  already  been  said,  the  following  may  be 
added:  "And  Judith  washed  herself  in  (or  at)  a  fountain 
by  the  camp."74  That  is,  more  literally,  "  she  went  out 
and  washed  herself  at  the  spring  of  water  that  was  in  the 
camp."  AYhat,  plunged  herself  in  a  spring  that  supplied 
an  army  of  two  hundred  thousand  men  with  water  ?  AVould 
she  have  plunged  herself  in  the  open  fountain,  in  the  sight 
of  the  whole  army  ?  Certainly  not,  and  the  conclusion  is, 
that  she  performed  this  ablution  by  sprinkling  or  pouring. 

Fifthly.  In  the  sense  of  sprinkling. 

"Which  stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks,  and  divers  icash- 
ingSy  dtatpopotq  l3a-ri<7tio'iz,  diajjhorois  haptismois.  Of  these 
divers  kinds  of  baptism  the  apostle  selects  two,  namely,  bap- 
tism by  blood,  and  baptism  by  water ;  and  of  these  he  also 
selects  three  rites,  and  all  these  rites  are  SPRINKLINGS. 
Such  was  the  direction  for  the  great  day  of  expiation. 
"And  he  shall  take  of  the  blood  of  the  bullock,  and 
sprinkle  it  with  his  finger  upon  the  mercy-seat  eastward  : 
and  before  the  mercy-seat  shall  he  sprinkle  of  the  blood 
with  his  finger  seven  times.  Then  shall  he  kill  the  goat  of 
the  sin-offering  that  is  for  the  people,  and  bring  his  blood 
within  the  vail,  and  do  with  that  blood  as  he  did  with  the 
blood  of  the  bullock,  and  sprinkle  it  upon  the  mercy-seat, 
and  before  the  mercy-seat."  75     And  so  the  apostle  observes, 

71  Mark  x.  33.  "-7  Luke  xii.  50.  "3  Ezek.  xxiii.  15. 

71  Judith  xii.  7.  75  Lev.  xvi.  14,  15. 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  65 


rt  If  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  an 
heifer,  sprinkling  the  unclean,"  &c.76 

There  is  no  mode  to  which  the  baptism  of  blood  can  be 
referred  but  to  the  sprinkling  of  Aaron  on  the  great  day  of 
expiation.  From  all  these  instances,  severally  and  collec- 
tively, it  is  evident  that  the  word  baptism  cannot  be  restricted 
exclusively  to  immersion  or  plunging;  so  far  from  it,  they 
furnish  no  evidence  whatever  that  immersion  was  practised 
in  ritual  observances,  or  in  the  administration  of  the  gospel 
ordinance  of  baptism. 

Fourthly.  Had  it  been  the  original  design  of  the  sacred 
writers  to  employ  a  word  invariably  and  necessarily  imply- 
ing entire  immersion,  the  copiousness  of  the  Greek  language 
furnished  many  such  terms,  which  they  would  have  used  in 
preference  to  baptizo — especially  if  they  invested  the  mode 
of  baptism  with  the  importance  with  which  the  Baptists  so 
strenuously  maintain  it  is  invested.  And  yet  the  sacred 
writers  do  not,  in  a  single  instance,  employ  one  of  these 
terms  when  they  refer  to  Christian  baptism :  they  invariably 
u?e  baptizo  and  baptisma.  While  we  have  but  one  single 
Anglo-Saxon  term,  plunge,  to  express  unequivocally  an  en- 
tire immersion,  the  Greek  language  has  at  least  eight,  per- 
haps more,  that  express  this  idea,  such  as  rom'Cw,  xara-ovzi^w, 
fiu&i^oj,  y.aTai3oi9i^(o,  xaradu'sa),  xara^aTzz'Xu),  e/ijSa-riZw,  and 
duTzru) :  terms  indisputably  precise  and  exact.  Henry  Ste- 
phens defines  pontizo,  "  to  plunge  into  the  sea."  Katapon- 
tizo  is  most  frequently  used,  and  signifies  to  plunge  down 

76  Heb.  ix.  13.  When  the  Levites,  it  may  be  added,  were  set  apart  to 
their  office,  it  was  done  by  "sjyrinkling  water  of  purifying  upon  them," 
&g.  Num.  viii.  7.  And  so  a  leper  was  cleansed  by  sprinkling.  Lev. 
xiv.  7.  Thus,  among  the  Jews  sprinkling  was  the  mode  or  emblem  o! 
purification.  But  Christ  and  bis  apostles  were  Jews,  and  were  familiar 
with  all  the  services  of  the  Jewish  church,  and  hence  they  never  could 
have  formed  any  idea  from  analogy  of  purification  by  immersion  in 
water  or  blood,  under  the  Cbristian  dispensation. 


66  THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


into  the  sea,  to  plunge  under."  Hedericus :  "  to  plunge 
down  into  the  sea,  to  plunge  under."  Donnegan  :  "  to  sink 
in  the  sea."  Grove :  "  to  plunge  or  sink  in  the  sea." 
Stephens  defines  buthizo,  "to  cast  into  a  gulf,  the  deep, 
or  the  sea;  to  plunge  down.  Katabuthizo  signifies  the  same, 
and  is  more  commonly  used."  Passor  :  "  to  plunge  down, 
to  cast  into  the  deep."  Hedericus:  "to  plunge;  from 
buthos,  a  whirlpool,  a  bottomless  pit,  or  the  deep.  Kata- 
buthizo,  to  cast  into  a  gulf,  or  the  deep,  to  plunge  down." 
Donnegan :  "  to  sink,  submerge.  Katabuthizo,  to  sub- 
merge ;  to  sink  down  quite  to  the  bottom." 

Stephens  defines  kataduno,  "  to  enter  within  or  into  a 
more  interior  place;  to  enter  into  a  gulf  or  the  deep." 
Hedericus  :  "  to  go  into  a  more  interior  place,  to  enter  into 
a  gulf  or  the  deep,  to  plunge  down,  to  plunge  under." 
Donnegan  :  "to  dip  under ;  to  immerse ;  to  sink — -properly, 
to  cause  the  sinking  of  a  thing,  as  of  a  ship ;  to  plunge ;  to 
dive ;  to  go  under ;  to  go  down,"  &c.  Grove :  "  to  go 
down;  descend  into;  to  sink;  immerge;  plunge,"  &c. 
And  so  of  the  other  terms.  All  these  terms  are  used  in  the 
Scriptures  with  the  same  exact  and  unequivocal  meaning. 
"  But  when  he  saw  the  wind  boisterous,  he  was  afraid,  and 
beginning  to  sink,  (katapontizesthai,*)  he  cried,  saying,  Lord, 
save  me."  Matt.  xiv.  30.  "Whoso  shall  offend  one  of  these 
little  ones,  &c,  and  that  he  were  drowned  (hatapontisthe)  in 
the  depths  of  the  sea."  Matt,  xviii.  6.     "And  they  came, 

and  filled  both  the  ships,  so  that  they  began  to  sink" 

buthizesthai.  Luke  v.  7.  "But  they  that  will  be  rich  fall 
into  a  temptation,  and  a  snare,  &c,  which  drown  (buthizousi) 
men  in  destruction  and  persecution."  1  Tim.  vi.  9.  And 
so  of  other  scriptures.  To  proceed  farther  would  be  use- 
less labor. 

Here  are  words  in  the  classical  and  sacred  writings  which 
exactly  and  unequivocally  convey  the  Baptist  idea  of  mode; 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  67 


but  yet,  amid  all  this  profusion  of  Greek  terms,  they  rejec 
them  all,  and  confine  themselves  wholly  to  baptizo  and  bap 
tisma  when  they  speak  of  Christian  baptism.  And  yet  the 
Baptists  boldly  affirm  "  that  there  is  not  another  term  in 
the  Greek  language,  whether  spoken  by  pagans  or  apostles, 
that  can  properly  express  baptizing  in  the  sense  subscribed 
to  by  the  Baptists,  if  baptizo  be  rejected  I"  The  sacred 
writers  were  not  ignorant  of  these  terms,  and  hence  would 
have  employed  them  with  reference  to  the  Christian  ordi- 
nance of  baptism,  had  they  entertained  the  idea  of  it  which 
the  Baptists  do.  But  they  do  not  use  these  terms,  and 
the  inference  is  inevitable,  that  the  sacred  writers  did  not 
originally  consider  immersion  as  essential  to  baptism,  or  as 
obligatory  upon  the  church  in  all  ages.  When  they  speak 
of  baptism,  they  do  not  call  it  immersion,  pouring,  or  sprin- 
kling— they  do  not  refer  to  any  specific  mode  as  invariably 
necessary.  They  simply  and  emphatically  employ  the  term 
baptism,  and  from  this  we  may  conclude  that  no  other  term 
in  the  Greek  language  would  have  expressed  the  true  nature 
and  meaning  of  the  evangelical  ordinance  of  baptism.  Other 
Greek  words  refer  unequivocally  to  the  manner  of  using 
water,  without  specifying  the  purpose  intended.  Baptizo 
2nd  its  cognates,  in  an  evangelical  sense,  refer  to  the  specific 
purpose  intended  in  the  use  of  water,  without  specifying  the 
manner  of  using  it.  Thus  the  translators  of  the  Bible  were 
wise  in  retaining  the  original  Greek  word  baptism,  only 
making  a  slight  change  in  the  letters  to  conform  to  the  idiom 
of  the  English  language.  Had  they  ventured  to  make  a 
translation  conformable  to  the  sentiments  of  the  Baptists  of 
the  present  day,  we  should  have  the  following  ridiculous 
statements  in  the  Bible.  For  "baptism  of  repentance/ '  the 
"  plunging  of  repentance ',,y  instead  of  "I  have  a  baptism  to 
be  baptized  with,"  "  IJiave  a  plunging  to  be  plunged  ivith;" 
instead  of  "I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water,  but  he  shall 


68  THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire/'  u  I  indeed 
immerse  you  with  water,  but  he  shall  immerse  you  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire."  They  would  have  made  an 
equally  absurd  and  ridiculous  translation  had  they  substi- 
tuted sprinkling  or  pouring  for  baptism  ;  and  psedobaptists, 
if  they  restricted  the  meaning  of  baptism  to  these  terms, 
would  be  exposed  to  the  criticism  now  so  fatal  to  the  ex- 
clusiveness  of  the  Baptists.  We  shall  conclude  this  branch 
of  the  argument  with  the  following  observations. 

(1.)  No  specific  mode  is  positively  enjoined  by  the  sacred 
writers  as  invariable  and  necessary. 

(2.)  In  every  translation  of  the  Bible  into  a  foreign  lan- 
guage, such  a  change  only  should  be  made  in  the  words 
baptizo  and  baptism,  as  will  conform  them  to  the  idiom  of 
the  language  into  which  they  are  translated.  All  the  efforts 
of  the  Baptists  to  alter  the  translation  of  these  words  in  our 
English  Bible  are  therefore  opposed  to  the  essential  nature 
of  Christian  baptism,  the  Christian  religion,  and  the  philoso- 
phy of  language. 

(3.)  It  is  a  remarkable  fact  in  the  history  of  baptism, 
that  in  process  of  time,  amid  the  corruptions  of  the  church, 
kataduno  was  unwarrantably  substituted  for  baptizo.  We 
are  indebted  to  Professor  Stuart  for  the  following  researches. 
"The  Greek  words  kataduo  and  katadusis  were  employed 
as  expressive  of  baptizing  and  baptism;  and  these  words 
mean  going  down  into  the  water,  or  immerging.  So  in  the 
following  examples.  Chrysostom,  Horn.  40,  1  Cor.  1:  "To 
be  baptized  and  to  submerge,  (katadusisthai,')  then  to  emerge, 
(anadueinj)  is  a  symbol  of  descent  into  the  grave,  and  of 
ascent  from  it."  Basil  De  Spiritu,  c.  15:  "By  three  im- 
mersions (en  trisi  kataduscsi)  and  by  the  like  number  of 
invocations,  the  great  mystery  of  baptism  is  completed." 
Damascus,  Orthodox  Fides,  4,  10:  "Baptism  is  a  type  of 
the  death  of  Christ;  for  by  three  immersions  (kataduseon) 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  69 


baptism  signifies/'  &c.  So  the  Apostolic  Constitutions, 
probably  written  in  the  fourth  century,  Lib.  iii.  ch.  IT  : 
"Immersion  (hatadusis)  denotes  dying  with  Christ :  emersion 
(anadusis)  a  resurrection  with  Christ.'"  Chrysostom,  ch.  3, 
Johannis:  "We,  as  in  the  sepulchre,  immersing  (hata- 
duontoii)  our  heads  in  the  water,  the  old  man  is  buried,  and 
sinking  down  (katadashatd)  the  whole  is  concealed  at  once : 
then  as  we  emerge,  the  new  man  again  rises."  Cyril,  of 
Jerusalem,  uses  this  language:  "Plunge  them  (hataduete) 
down  thrice  into  the  water,  and  raise  them  up  again." 
Now  if  these  Fathers  regarded  immersion  as  the  precise  and 
unequivocal  meaning  of  baptizo,  why  did  they  not  employ 
baptvzo,  and  not  hataduno?  If,  as  the  Baptists  strenuously 
maintain,  baptizo  has  but  one  meaning,  immersion,  and  these 
Fathers  so  believed,  there  was  no  necessity  for  substituting 
the  word  hataduno.  But  they  did  use  hataduno  as  a  sub- 
stitute. Therefore,  they  did  not  believe  baptizo  has  but  one 
invariable  meaning,  viz.  immersion.  But  if  they  believed 
hataduno  to  be  synonymous  with  baptizo,  they  not  only 
acted  inconsistently,  but  were  not  sustained  by  the  sacred 
writers,  for  they  never  once  use  hataduno  with  reference  to 
baptism.  In  either  case,  the  Baptists  can  derive  no  ad- 
vantage from  their  example. 

Fifthly.  I  invite  the  reader's  attention  to  another  con- 
sideration. The  most  learned  lexicographers,  both  ancient 
and  modern,  unanimously  give  the  word  a  wider  significa- 
tion than  that  of  immersion.  Among  whom  may  be  men- 
tioned Stephanus,  Scapula,  Passor,  Suidas,  Hedericus,  Cou- 
lon,  Schrevelius,  Parkhurst,  Ainsworth,  Schleusner,  Grove, 
and  Donnegan.  And  therefore  Dr.  Carson,  after  assuming 
that  baptizo  "always  signifies  to  dip,"  admits  that  he  has 
"all  the  lexicographers  against  him."  77     And  yet,  notwith- 

77  Carson  on  Baptism,  p.  79. 


70  THE    MODE   OE   BAPTISM. 


standing  this  unanimous  testimony  of  lexicographers,  and 
the  admission  of  Dr.  Carson,  the  Baptists  generally,  from 
the  pulpit,  the  press,  and  at  the  fireside,  affirm  that  all 
learned  lexicographers,  ancient  and  modern,  give  immersion 
as  the  exclusive  meaning  of  baptizo.  I  make  the  following 
extract  from  Chapin's  Primitive  Church,  pp.  43,  44  : — "  As 
it  is  agreed  on  all  hands,  that  the  native  Greeks  are  the  best 
authority  for  the  meaning  of  their  own  language,  we  shall 
refer  the  question  to  them.  We  give  therefore  the  defini- 
tions of  these  words,  (bapto  and  baptizo,)  only  from  the  native 
Greek  lexicographers.  The  oldest  Greek  lexicographer  is 
HesycMus,  who  lived  in  the  fourth  century  of  the  Christian 
era.  He  gives  only  the  root  bapto,  and  the  only  meaning 
he  gives  the  word  is  antleo,  to  draw  or  pump  water."  Next 
in  order  comes  Suidas,  a  native  Greek,  who  wrote  in  the 
tenth  century.  He  gives  only  the  derivative  baptizo,  and 
defines  it  by  pluno,  to  wasli.  Passing  over  the  intermediate 
Greek  lexicographers,  we  come  down  to  the  present  century, 
at  the  beginning  of  which  we  find  Gases,  a  learned  Greek, 
who  with  great  labour  and  pains  compiled  a  large  and  valua- 
ble lexicon  of  the  ancient  Greek  language.  His  book,  in 
three  volumes  quarto,  is  a  work  deservedly  held  in  high 
estimation  by  all,  and  is  generally  used  by  the  native  Greeks. 
The  following  are  his  definitions  of  bapto  and  baptizo ; — 
Bapto. — Brecho,  to  wet,  moisten,  bedew. 

Pluno,  to  icash. 

Gemizo,  to  fill. 

Buthizo,  to  dip. 

Antleo,  to  draw,  to  pump  water. 
Baptizo. — Brecho,  to  wet,  moisten,  bedew. 

Pluno,  to  WASH. 

Leno,  to  WASH,  to  bathe. 

Antleo,  to  draw,  to  pump  water. 
Sixthly.  The  most  learned  divines  and  commentators  of 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  71 


the  church  give  a  wider  meaning  to  bapiizo  than  immersion. 
From  these  are  selected  Piscator,  Zanchius,  Alstedius,  Mas- 
tricht,  Paraeus,  Wickliffe,  Leigh,  Lightfoot,  Calvin,  Beza, 
Whitsius,  Hammond,  Wall,  Danaeus,  Spanhemius,  Bishop 
Patrick,  Calmet,  Faber,  Doddridge,  Stockius,  Poole,  Wesley, 
Clarke,  Watson,  Bloomfield,  Stuart — in  a  word,  the  whole 
pasdobaptist  church.78  Dr.  Samuel  Miller,  late  Professor  of 
Ecclesiastical  History,  &c.  at  Princeton,  observes,  "I  am 
well  persuaded  that  the  venerable  Dr.  Owen,  certainly  one 
of  the  greatest  and  best  men  of  the  day  in  which  he  lived, 
is  borne  out  by  truth  when  he  pronounces  "that  no  one 
instance  can  be  given  in  Scripture,  in  which  the  word  which 
we  render  baptize,  does  necessarily  signify  to  dip  or  plunge. 
In  every  case  the  word  admits  of  a  different  sense;  and  it  is 
really  imposing  on  public  credulity  to  insist  that  it  always 

78  The  Baptists  strenuously  maintain  that  the  exclusive  meaning  of 
baptizo  is  immerse.  And  yet  from  the  commencement  of  Greek  litera- 
ture to  its  close — from  the  time  of  Homer,  1000  years  before  Christ,  to 
the  time  of  Constantinus  Harmenopulus,  13S0  years  after  Christ,  a  period 
of  more  than  2000  years,  including  "all  the  orators,  poets,  historians, 
philosophers,  physicians,  mathematicians,  geographers,  rhetoricians,  and 
philologists  of  Greece,  all  the  Greek  Fathers  of  the  Christian  church,  and 
the  Byzantine  writers  of  the  Middle  Ages" — during  all  this  long  period, 
no  controversy  existed  about  the  import  of  this  word — though  occasions 
often  arose  when  the  attention  of  the  early  Fathers  might  have  been 
directed  to  the  subject.  Why  then  is  the  controversy  about  the  mean- 
ing of  baptizo  so  recent  ?  Simply  because  till  recently  no  sect  arose  to 
limit  it  to  a  single  signification — indeed,  no  one  dared  to  do  this  so  long 
as  the  Greek  continued  to  be  the  living,  spoken  language.  "  Immersion 
was  never  considered  essential  to  baptism  till  the  rise  of  the  Anabaptists 
in  Germany,  in  the  sixteenth  century."  Dr.  Pond,  p.  43.  The  lexicons 
and  vocabularies  of  Suidas,  Zonoras,  Hesychius,  and  others — the  numerous 
treatises  on  baptism,  written  in  Greek,  and  frequent  allusions  to  it  in  the 
writings  of  the  Fathers — the  commentaries  which  were  written  on  both 
the  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  in  which  constant  allusions  are  made 
to  baptism, — contain  not  one  word  in  favor  of  the  ground  taken  by  the 
Baptists,  but  in  very  many  instances  directly  oppose  and  contradict  it 


72  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


does,  and  necessarily  must  signify  immersion."79  Dr. 
D wight  observes,  that  "  the  body  of  learned  critics  and  lexi- 
cographers declare  that  the  original  meaning  of  the  word 
baptizo,  and  its  root  bapto,  is  to  tinge,  stain,  dye,  or  color ; 
and  that  when  it  means  immersion,  it  is  only  in  a  secondary 
and  occasional  sense,  derived  from  the  fact  that  such  things 
as  are  dyed,  stained,  or  colored,  are  often  immersed  for  this 
end.  The  primary  meaning  of  these  terms  is  cleansing ; 
the  effect,  not  the  mode  of  washing ;  the  mode  is  usually 
referred  to  incidentally,  whenever  these  words  are  mentioned; 
and  although  capable  of  denoting  any  mode  of  washing, 
whether  by  affusion,  sprinkling,  or  immersion,  yet,  as  in 
many  instances,  cannot,  without  obvious  impropriety,  be 
made  to  signify  immersion,  and  in  others  cannot  signify  it 
at  all."80  Mr.  Richard  Watson  observes,  that,  "if  the  ad- 
vocates of  immersion  could  prove  what  they  have  not  been 
able  to  do,  that  plunging  is  the  primary  meaning  of  the 
term,  they  would  gain  nothing,  since,  in  Scripture  it  is 
notoriously  used  to  express  OTHER  APPLICATIONS  OF  WATER. 
Whatever,  therefore,  the  primary  meaning  of  the  verb  'to 
baptize'  may  be,  is  a  question  of  no  importance  on  the  one 
side  or  the  other.  Leaving  the  mode  of  administering  bap- 
tism, as  a  religious  rite,  out  of  the  question,  it  is  used, 
generally,  at  least  in  the  New  Testament,  not  to  express 
immersion  in  water,  but  for  the  act  of  pouring  or  sprin- 
kling it )  and  that  baptism,  when  spoken  of  as  a  religious 
rite,  is  to  be  administered  by  immersion,  no  satisfactory  in- 
stance can  be  adduced.  In  fact,  if  the  true  mode  of  baptism 
be  immersion  only,  then  must  we  wholly  give  up  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  in  any  other  mode  than 
pouring  out  was  never  administered."81     The  passages  in 

79  Miller  on  Presbyterianism  and  Baptism,  p.  66. 

*>  Theology,  vol.  iv.,  pp.  345,  346. 

81  Theological  Institutes,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  650,  651. 


THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM.  73 


the  Xew  Testament,  in  which  the  word  baptize  occurs,  are 
just  ninety  in  number.  Of  these  sixty-Jive  determine  just 
nothing  as  to  mode;  sixteen  favor  the  mode  of  SPRINKLING 
or  pouring, — two  of  these  render  it  morally  certain  that  the 
mode  was  sprinkling  or  pouring;  and  of  the  remaining 

nine,  NOT  ONE  OR  ALL  TOGETHER  DEMONSTRATE  THAT  THE 
MODE  WAS  IMMERSION.88 

This  closes  the  consideration  we  give  baptizo}  as  it  stands 
disconnected  from  its  appendages  in  the  Bible.  "What  then 
is  the  use  of  these  appendages?  Simply  to  express  the 
manner  of  approach  to,  or  departure  from,  or  circumstances 
at  the  water.  This  analysis  presents  the  whole  subject  in 
its  true  light :  the  proper  meanings  of  the  words  are  not 
confounded.  It  is  impossible  rationally  and  philologically 
to  maintain  the  doctrine  of  express  and  exclusive  immersion 
upon  the  appendages,  or  the  original  word  baptizo,  or  upon 
both  conjointly.  From  this  whole  consideration  of  the 
original  word  §a-xi%u),  the  ground  we  take  is  this  : — The 
meaning  of  the  word,  in  its  evangelical  sense,  is  to  wash,  and 
admits  of  any  external  mode  which  the  subject  may,  in  his 
own  judgment,  infer  is  the  best  representation  or  emblem 

82  Indeed,  admit  that  the  general  signification  of /Janrtso)  is  to  immerse, 
and  that  the  consequent  obligation  of  baptism  is  imposed  upon  all  be- 
lievers to  be  -wholly  immersed  in  water,  then,  in  celebrating  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  the  other  sacrament,  all  believers  are  bound,  from  the  general 
meaning  of  the  term  employed,  to  eat  a  full  meal  whenever  they  cele- 
brate this  divine  ordinance.  The  literal  meaning  of  the  word  buxvov, 
deipnon,  (1  Cor.  xL  20,)  is  a  feast  or  supper.  But  the  apostle  severely 
reproves  the  Corinthians  for  so  regarding  the  meaning  of  the  term  in 
their  celebration  of  the  sacrament,  and  advises  all  that  are  hungry  to  eat 
at  home ;  evidently  teaching  that  a  rigorous  interpretation  of  the  term 
might  lead  to  a  perversion  of  the  sacrament  from  its  real  and  original 
design.  Upon  the  strict  construction  of  the  Baptists,  in  the  case  of  the 
Eucharist,  the  censure  Gf  the  apostle  would  be  applicable  to  them ;  for 
certainly  a  similar  error  is  committed  in  their  interpretation  of  the  word 
baptizo* 


74  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


of  the  inward  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  word  ex- 
presses, in  the  first  place,  the  idea  of  internal,  spiritual  wash- 
ing; and  in  the  second  place,  it  admits  the  adoption  of  any 
mode  that  shadows  forth  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
If  some  think  sprinkling  is  sufficient  to  shadow  forth  the 
inward  washing,  then  sprinkling  is  a  valid  mode  to  them. 
If  others  think  pouring  answers  just  as  well,  they  are  not  to 
be  condemned.  And  if  others  think  immersion  answers 
better,  why,  there  is  no  objection,  unless  they  are  exclusive 
in  their  judgment.  In  every  case,  however,  the  spiritual 
meaning  of  baptism  is  the  only  important  and  vital  con- 
sideration. "Then  there  arose  a  question  between  some  of 
John's  disciples  and  the  Jews  about  purification,  (zaftapiGixov, 
katharismon.)  And  they  came  to  John,  and  said  unto  him, 
Rabbi,  he  who  was  with  thee  beyond  Jordan,  to  whom  thou 
barest  witness,  the  same  baptizeth, — /SawreCee,  baptizei, — and 
all  men  come  to  him."  83  The  subject  of  dispute  here  does 
not  seem  to  be  the  mode  of  baptism,  but  the  signification  of 
it ;  and  it  is  this  alone  in  a  spiritual  sense,  after  all,  that  is 
indispensable  in  the  administration  of  baptism. 

One  word  more.  Mode  in  itself  can  express  nothing  of  a 
moral  quality.  The  baptism  of  water  is  not  called  a  purifi- 
cation in  consideration  of  any  mode  that  may  be  adopted, 
but  because  water  is  the  element  employed  as  a  religious 
emblem,  just  as  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  spiritual 
and  real  purification,  because  the  Holy  Spirit  is  employed 
in  the  case.  So  water  be  employed  in  baptism,  and  the 
idea  of  purification  be  set  forth,  no  matter  what  is  the  mode 
that  is  employed:  the  idea  of  purification  or  cleansing  is 
suggested  by  the  element  used,  and  not  by  the  mode  em- 
ployed.    Just  as  bread  and  wine  set  forth  the  broken  body 

83  John  iii.  25,  26.  It  is  clear,  from  the  synonymous  meanings  of 
katharismon  and  baptizei,  that  baptizo,  in  this  instance,  means  to  wash. 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  75 


and  shed  blood  of  Christ,  no  matter  what  may  be  the  mode 
of  receiving  these  emblems;  so  the  emblematical  character 
of  baptism  is  in  the  water,  and  not  in  the  mode  of  its  appli- 
cation to  the  subject.  Until  it  can  be  clearly  demonstrated 
— and  it  cannot  be — that  some  great  vital  truth  is  con- 
nected with  immersion,  it  cannot  be  enjoined  upon  any  as 
the  only  valid  mode  of  baptism.  The  reason  why  sprin- 
kling and  pouring  are  preferable  as  modes  of  baptism  is, 
because  they  are  more  convenient,  and  analogous  to  the 
modes  employed  in  the  ceremonial  services  of  the  Jewish 
church,  and  to  the  modes  adopted  by  the  Holy  Ghost  in 
spiritual  baptism ;  and  we  feel  safe  in  adopting  such  high 
standards. 

"We  shall  conclude  this  chapter  with  the  following 
inferences. 

First.  Bapto  and  haptizo  have  various  intrinsic  meanings, 
and  immersion  is  but  one  of  these  meanings, — though  im- 
mersion  is  not  once  used  in  the  Scriptures  as  the  meaning 
of  haptizo. 

Secondly.  The  mode  implied,  in  any  given  case,  is  to  be 
determined  by  the  circumstances  of  the  case : — knowing  the 
circumstances,  we  can  determine  the  mode.  The  circum- 
stances of  no  case  recorded  in  the  Scriptures  justify  even  the 
idea  of  immersion,  much  less  the  exclusiveness  of  the  Bap- 
tists on  the  subject. 

Thirdly.  The  primary  evangelical  meaning  of  haptizo  is 
to  icash,  to  purify ,  in  a  sacramental  sense  :  it  also  implies 
sacramental  obligation  on  the  part  of  God  and  man.  Mode, 
then,  is  non-essential.  But  knowing  the  circumstances,  in 
any  contested  case,  we  may  determine  the  mode  employed 
in  that  case.  But  for  the  controversy  in  the  premises,  there 
would  have  been  no  necessity  to  refer  to  the  circumstances, 
and  yet  an  impartial  examination,  in  every  case,  excludes 
the  idea  of  immersion. 


THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM. 


Fourthly.  Had  the  mode  of  the  ordinance  been  absolutely 
essential,  the  sacred  writers  would  have  used  a  word  or 
words  of  unequivocal  meaning  as  to  mode.  This  they  have 
not  done. 

Fifthly.  It  has  been  seen,  that  we  cannot  determine 
either  the  intrinsic  meaning  of  the  terms  used,  nor  the 
mode  employed,  in  any  given  case,  by  reference  to  our 
dictionary  and  grammar;  but  from  the  context,  occasion, 
times,  manners,  customs,  habits,  taste,  general  sentiments, 
ideas,  and  peculiar  usages  of  the  people, — in  a  word,  all  the 
circumstances  that  stand  connected  with  the  specific  use  of 
the  words,  and  the  transaction  which  they  rationally  imply; 
and,  in  every  case,  from  these  considerations,  immersion  is 
excluded. 

Sixthly.  That  no  moral  quality  or  vital  truth  of  Chris- 
tianity is  connected  with  mere  mode. 

Seventhly.  It  is  immaterial  what  mode  be  employed,  so 
the  sacramental  nature  of  baptism  is  set  forth. 

Eighthly.  And  lastly,  sprinkling  and  pouring  are  prefera- 
ble to  immersion,  since  they  are  more  convenient,  and  are 
sustained  by  analogies  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  highest 
authority. 


CHAPTER  n. 

THE    ORIGINAL    GREEK   PREPOSITIONS. 

3.  As  a  third  source  of  evidence  respecting  the  mode 
of  baptism,  we  shall  consider  the  original  Greek  prepo- 
sitions of  the  New  Testament.  It  will  be  found,  in  this 
examination,  that  they  furnish  no  ground  whatever  for  the 
doctrine  of  immersion;  indeed,  it  will  be  found,  in  the 
application  of  the  rules  we  shall  lay  down,  that  immersion 


ORIGINAL    GREEK    PREPOSITIONS. 


did  not  occur  in  a  single  instance  in  -which  they  are  employed 
in  connection  with  baptism.     The  rules  are  the  following : 

(1.)  When  voluntary  motion  into  a  place  is  signified,  elq 
— eis — is  used  before  both  the  verb  and  noun  or  pronoun. 

(2.)  "When  voluntary  motion  out  of  a  place  is  signified, 
ix  or  i'q — eh  or  ex — is  used  before  both  the  verb  and  noun  or 
pronoun. 

(3.)  When  motion  ta  or  unto  a  place  is  signified,  elq  is 
used  only  before  the  noun,  without  the  verb  and  preposition. 

(4.)  "When  motion  upward  or  downward  from  a  place,  or 
to  a  place,  is  expressed,  a  preposition  is  used  both  in  com- 
position with  the  verb,  and  before  the  noun  or  pronoun;  but 
in  this  case  the  prepositions  are  not  the  same,  nor  of  similar 
import. 

First.  When  voluntary  motion  into  a  place  is  signified. 
eis  is  used  before  both  the  verb  and  noun  or  pronoun. 

Take  a  few  examples.  "  Enter  into  thy  closet' ' — EcaeX&z 
elq  to  zoftsiav.  Matt.  vi.  6.  "Ye  shall  in  no  case  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven" — elaiX&q  re  elq  ttjv  fiaunXetasf.  Matt, 
v.  20.  "And  lead  us  not  into  temptation" — Ka\  pfy  eltrev- 
iyxrtq  fjfiaq  elq  netpatrpLdv.  Matt.  vi.  13.  "Not  every  one 
that  sayeth  unto  me,  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaven" — elaeXeufferai  elq  ttjv  fiaffiXeiav.  "And  when 
Jesus  was  entered  into  Capernaum" — El<reX#6vri  ok  avruj  elq 
Kcarepvaobfi.  "  Send  us  into  the  swine,  that  we  may  enter 
into  them.  x\nd  the  unclean  spirits — entered  into  the 
swine" — ha  elq  aorobq  eltriX&afftev — el<ri}X&ov  elq  robq  goipooq. 
"Neither  go  into  the  town" — MrjSi  elq  zr^  zriptyv  elq  iXSjjq. 
Mark  viii.  26.  "  And  when  he  was  come  into  the  house" — 
Ka\  elireX&ovra  sturdy  elq  otxov.  Mark  ix.  28.  "And  if  thy 
hand  offend  thee,  cut  it  off;  it  is  better  for  thee  to  enter 
into  life  maimed,"  &c. — xaX6>  croc  ler)  xoXXdv  elq  ttjv  £anp 
elaeldeiv.  Mark  ix'.  43.  And  so  the  47th  verse  :  e?<reX$eiv 
dq  rtpt  pafftXewot  too  Beuu.     But  we  will  not  detain  the  reader 

7* 


78  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


longer  with  quotations,  but  direct  his  attention  to  the  follow- 
ing passages,  all  of  which  sustain  this  first  rule  in  the 
strongest  manner: — Matt.  x.  5,  11,  12;  xii.  4,  29;  xv.  11, 
17;  xviii.  3,  8,  9;  xix.  17,  23,  24;  xxi.  10,  12;  xxiv. 
38 ;  xxv.  10,  21,  23  ;  xxvi.  41 ;  xxvii.  53.  Mark  i.  21,  45 ; 
ii.  1,  26;  iii.  1.  27;  vi.  56;  vii.  17,  18,  19,  24;  x.  23, 
24,  25;  xi.  11, 15;  xiv.  38;  xvi.  5.  Luke  i.  9,  40;  iv. 
16,  38 ;  vi.  4,  6 ;  vii.  1,  36,  44 ;  viii.  33,  41,  51 ;  ix.  4, 
34,  52 ;  x.  5,  8, 10,  38 ;  xi.  4 ;  xvii.  12,  27 ;  xviii.  24,  25 ; 
xix.  45 ;  xxii.  3, 10, 11,  40,  46,  54 ;  xxiv.  26.  John  iii.  4, 
5;  iv.  38;  vi.  22;  x.  1;  xviii.  1,  15,  28,33;  xix.  9;  xx. 
6.  Acts  iii.  2,  3,  8  ;  v.  21 ;  ix.  6,  8,  17 ;  x.  24 ;  xi.  8, 12, 
20;  xiii.  14;  xiv.  1,  14,  20;  xvi.  15,  40;  xvii.  20;  xviii. 
19 ;  xix.  8,  30 ;  xxi.  8,  26,  28,  29,  37 ;  xxiii.  16,  33 ;  xxv. 
23.  Romans  v.  12.  1  Tim.  vi.  7.  Heb.  i.  6 ;  iii.  11 ;  iv.  1, 
3,  4,  5, 10, 11 ;  ix.  12,  24,  25 ;  x.  5,  19 ;  xiii.  11.  James 
v.  4.  2  Pet.  i.  11.  2  John  7.  Rev.  xv.  8 ;  xxii.  14.  These 
references  will  be  sufficient,  and  we  will  only  add,  that 
eiq  before  both  the  verb  and  noun  is  found  in  the  New 
Testament  145  times — surely  enough  to  establish  the  first 
member  of  the  first  rule.  But  we  go  farther,  and  adduce 
passages  in  which  elq  occurs  before  both  the  verb  and  the 
pronoun. 

"  There  is  nothing  from  without  a  man,  that  entering  into 
him  can  defile  hini,"  &c. — elo-opeuo;±evov  elq  abzov.  Mark 
vii. .15.  "Go  your  way  into  the  village  over  against  you, 
and  as  soon  as  ye  be  entered  into  it,"  &c. — ela^opeuoixevoi 
elq  abrqv.  Mark  xi.  2.  And  so  Mark  ix.  25;  Luke 
viii.  30,  32;  xviii.  17;  xxi.  21.  John  xiii.  27.  Acts  x.  3; 
xvii.  2;  xxviii.  30.  Heb.  iv.  6.  Rev.  iii.  20;  xi.  11; 
xxi.  27.  Many  other  instances  might  be  given,  but  these 
will  answer.  And  so  in  the  Septuagint,  the  same  gram- 
matical rule  is  scrupulously  observed,  as  for  instance,  in 
Gen.  vii.  7-16;   xii.  11,  14,  15;   xix.  3.  Ex.  xii.  23;  xiv. 


ORIGINAL   GREEK    PREPOSITIONS.  79 


22  Josh.  ii.  1,  3;  iii.  15.  The  example  in  Ex.  xiv.  22,  is 
worthy  of  special  attention  :  "  And  the  children  of  Israel 
went  into  the  midst  of  the  sea" — eiselthon — eis  meson  tes 
thalasses. 

Secondly.  When  voluntary  motion  end  of  &  place  is  signi- 
fied, ix  or  2§ — ek  or  ex — is  used,  before  both  the  verb  and 
noun  or  pronoun.     Ex  or  c~  is  used  before  the  verb  and 
noun  in  the  following  examples  : — "  And  thou  Bethlehem, 
in  the  land  of  Judah,  art  not  the  least  among  the  princes  of 
Judah  :  for  out  of  thee  shall  come  a  Governor,"  &c. — ix  goo 
yap  i-eXeuaerai   fyoufievoq.   Matt.  ii.  6.      "  Thou   hypocrite, 
first  cast  the  beam  out  of  thine  own  eye,  and  then  shalt  thou 
see  clearly  to  cast  out  the  mote  out  of  thy  brother's  eye" — 
exftade — ^x  too  6e#aAfj.ou  add.   Matt.  vii.  5.      "  There  met  him 
two  possessed  with  devils,  coming  out  of  the  tombs" — ix — 
&£-ep%6fi£voi.  Matt.  viii.  28.     "A  good  man,  out  of  the  good 
treasure  of  the  heart,  bringeth  forth  good  things" — ix — 
ix[za/./.z>,.  Matt.  xii.  35.     "That  which   cometh  out   of  the 
mouth,  this  defileth  a  man" — ixxopeuopjevov  ix  tou  aruiiazoq. 
Matt.  xv.   11.      "And  came  up   out  the  graves  after   his 
resurrection" — iZjs/S/u^req  ix  zw>  ii'sr^iziwj.   Matt,  xxvii.  53. 
And  so  Matt.  xiii.  52 ;   xv.  18,  19 ;   xxi.  17,  39.     Mark  i. 
29 ;  v.  2,  8 ;   vi.  54 ;   vii.  20,  21,  26,  29,  31 ;   xi.  19  ;    xii. 
8;  xiii.  1.    Luke  iv.  22,  29  ;  xx.  15.    John  iv.  30 ;  viii.  42, 
59  ;  x.  39  ;  xiii.  3  ;  xv.  19.     Acts  vii.  3,  4,  10,  40,  58  j  xii. 
11,  17;    xiii.  42;   xvii.  33;   xix.  16;   xxii.  18;   xxvi.  17; 
xxvii.  30 ;  xxviii.  3.    1  Cor.  v.  2, 10.    2  Cor.  vi.  17 ;  xi.  33. 
Gal.  i.  4;  iii.  13.     Heb.  iii.  16;    vii.  5;  viii.  9.     1  Pet.  ii. 
9.     3  John  10.     Rev.  i.  16;  iii.  5;  iv.  5;  ix.  3, 17, 18  ;  xi. 
5;    xiv.  15,  17,  18,  20;    xv.  6;    xix.  5,  15,  21;    xxi.  1 
And  so  in  a  multitude  of  other  instances.     One  hundred  and 
seventeen  examples  have  been  examined,  in  all  of  which  the 
rule  holds  good.     Ex,  before  the  verb  and    the    pronoun, 
occurs  in  the  following  passages: — Mark  i.  25,  26;   v.  30; 


80  THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


ix.  25.  Luke  iv.  35.  Acts  adii.  17.  1  Cor.  v.  13.  1  John 
ii.  19.  Rev.  xviii.  4. 

Thirdly.  When  motion  to  or  unto  a  place  is  signified, 
c:c  is  used  only  before  the  noun  or  pronoun,  without  the 
verb  and  preposition.  "Peter  therefore  went  forth,  ana 
that  other  disciple,  and  came  to  the  sepulchre" — %p%ovro 
e:>  ro  fonjfielov.  John  xx.  3.  "T\Tide  is  the  gate  that  lead- 
cth  to  destruction" — eiq  rr/s  &x<&Xeiav.  Matt,  vii.  13.  And 
so  in  many  other  scriptures.  Where  eis  stands  before  the 
verb  without  the  noun,  it  generally,  if  not  always,  means  in, 
as  may  be  found  by  reference  to  Matt.  viii.  8 ;  ix.  25 ;  xii. 
45;  xxii.  11,  12;  xxiii.  13,  14;  xxvi.  58.  In  several 
instances  where  eis  occurs  before  the  noun,  without  the  verb 
and  preposition,  it  is  translated  into;  but  even  in  these 
instances  the  action  is  involuntary  or  constrained.  Eis, 
standing  alone,  never  means  into,  though  connected  with 
the  verb  or  noun,  but  before  the  verb  it  invariably  means  in. 

Ek  before  the  verb,  generally,  if  not  always,  means  out ; 
and  before  the  noun  or  pronoun,  it  means  of  or  from.  In 
connection  only,  therefore,  does  ex  or  ek  mean  out  of,  or  out 
from,  as  the  case  may  be. 

Fourthly.  When  motion  upward,  or  downward,  from  a 
place,  or  to  a  place,  is  expressed,  a  preposition  is  used  both 
in  composition  with  the  verb,  and  before  the  noun :  but  in 
this  case  the  prepositions  are  not  the  same,  nor  of  similar 
import.  In  expressing  motion  downward  to  a  place,  kata 
is  generally  used  in  composition  with  the  verb,  and  eis 
before  the  noun  :  and  in  expressing  motion  upward  from  a 
place,  ana  is  commonly  used  in  composition  with  the  verb, 
and  ex  or  apo  before  the  noun.  "  Now  Peter  and  John 
went  up — anebainon — together  into — eis — the  temple,"  &c. 
Acts  iii.  1.  "  And  Joseph  also  went  up — anebe — from — apo 
— Galilee."  Luke  ii.  4.  Here  the  same  verb  and  the  same 
preposition  are  used  as  in  Matt.  iii.  16  to  express  the  motion 


ORIGINAL    GREEK   PREPOSITIONS.  81 


of  Jesus  in  going  up  from  the  river  Jordan.  "  And  he  was 
seen  many  days  of  them  which  came  up>  with  him — sunayia- 
basin — -from — apo — Galilee."  Acts  xiii.  31.  "  After  three 
days  he  (Festus)  ascended — anebe — from — apo — Cesarean 
Acts  xxv.  1.  And  so  in  the  Septuagint,  this  rale  is  observed 
with  astonishing  exactitude.  Gen.  ii.  6;  xvii.  22,  are  worthy 
of  special  attention.  Gen.  ii.  6  :  "  there  went  up — anebainen 
— a  mist  from — ek — the  earth  :"  here  the  same  verb  and 
preposition  are  used  that  are  employed  in  Acts  viii.  39  to 
express  the  motion  of  Philip  and  the  eunuch  in  coming  up 
from  the  water.  Gen.  xvii.  22  :  "and  God  went  up — anebe 
— from — apo — Abraham  :"  here  the  same  verb  and  preposi- 
tion are  used  that  are  employed  to  express  the  motion  of 
Jesus  in  going  up  from  Jordan.  Other  examples  of  motion 
downward  to  a  place  may  be  found  in  Luke  x.  30 ;  xviii.  14. 
John  ii.  12.  Acts  vii.  15;  xiv.  25;  xvi.  8;  and  xxv.  6. 

Such  are  the  grammatical  rules  according  to  which  the 
Greek  Testament  is  to  be  explained,  and  there  are  perhaps 
no  rules  in  any  language  of  more  general  application  than 
these.  A  careful  examination  of  the  Greek  Testament, 
from  first  to  last,  will  result  in  the  conviction  of  their  as- 
tonishing universality.  It  is  true,  as  to  all  general  rules, 
there  are  some  exceptions  to  these  rales ;  but  they  are  all 
unimportant  and  irrelevant,  having  no  application  whatever 
to  a  single  specific  case  of  the  ORDINANCE  of  baptism  re- 
corded in  the  Scriptures.  If  there  were  a  single  exception 
to  the  application  of  these  general  rules  in  the  sacred  record 
of  Christian  baptism,  and  this  exception  might  be  employed 
in  favor  of  immersion  in  that  single  case,  the  exception 
should  be  admitted ;  but  there  is  not  a  single  exception  in 
the  premises — not  one.  The  general  rules  only  are  applica- 
ble with  the  most  convincing  exactitude  in  every  case  in 
which  the  mode  of  administering  the  sacrament  of  ChrisV'^n 
baptism  has  been  made  a  matter  of  controversy. 


82  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


We  shall  now  apply  these  rules  in  the  examination  of  the 
celebrated  cases  in  which  these  prepositions  are  used  in  con- 
nection with  Christian  baptism. 

"And  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,  confessing  their 
sins" — Ipa-riZoszo  £>  rw  'lopddsxj.  Matt.  iii.  6.  Had  the 
verb  e;j.pa-ziZu) — embaptizo — been  used  in  this  case,  then, 
according  to  the  first  rule,  the  doctrine  of  immersion  might 
be  sustained  from  the  force  of  the  Greek  prepositions;  but 
the  preposition  stands  alone  before  the  noun,  without  con- 
nection with  the  verb,  and  the  conclusion  is,  that  immersion 
is  not  intended.  "And  Jesus,  when  he  was  baptized,  went 
up  straightway  out  of  the  water" — Kai  fia-TtG&eiq  6  'Iyirduq 
dwiffy  evdbq  a-b  zoo  vdaroq.  Matt.  iii.  16.  Here  the  prepo- 
sition employed  is  opo,  which  is  ordinarily  rendered  in  the 
New  Testament  from.  Ex,  which  before  the  verb,  means 
out  of j  in  this  instance  is  not  used,  either  in  composition 
with  the  verb,  or  before  the  noun :  it  is  not  employed  at  all 
in  this  case.  Had  zzlp'/opai  been  employed  instead  of 
aya^atpatj  and  l/.  instead  of  a-6,  the  conclusion  would  be  clear 
that  Christ  was  immersed.  The  true  translation,  therefore, 
of  apOj  in  this  case,  should  be  from,  and  not  "  out  of" 
"And  they  went  down  both  into  the  water" — xarifco-ov — si<z 
to  udwp.  Acts  viii.  38.  "  And  when  they  were  come  up  out 
of  the  water" — asifaffav  l/.  rod  ooaroq.  v.  39.  Eis  only  is 
used  as  a  governing  preposition,  in  the  first  instance,  dis- 
connected from  the  verb,  and  consequently  means  to  or  unto; 
and  eh,  in  the  second  instance,  stands  alone,  disconnected 
from  the  verb,  and  consequently  means  from,  and  not  out 
of  Had  £'.<j£nyj)tiai  been  used,  in  the  first  instance,  instead 
of  xara^aixju  •  and  zzinyup.ai  been  employed,  in  the  second 
instance,  instead  of  avafiaow,  then,  according  to  the  rules 
we  have  laid  down,  immersion  might  be  sustained  in  the 
case  of  the  baptism  of  the  eunuch  j  but  as  elq  only  is  used, 
in  the  first  instance,  and  h  only  in  the  second,  the  conclusion 


ORIGINAL   GREEK   PREPOSITIONS.  83 


is  irresistible  that  immersion  was  not  practised  in  this  case. 
As  baptism  in  the  case  of  the  Jews,  and  of  Jesus  by  John, 
and  of  the  ennuch  by  Philip,  was  not  performed  by  im- 
mersion, and  as  these  are  the  cases  on  which  the  Baptists 
depend,  and  which  they  ordinarily  present,  as  the  strongest 
cases  in  support  of  their  views,  we  deem  it  needless  to  apply 
the  rules  above  any  further,  though  the  application  might  be 
made  with  equal  effect  in  every  other  case  of  Christian 
baptism  recorded  in  the  Bible.  In  conclusion,  it  is  worthy 
of  observation,  that  the  rules  of  interpretation  we  have 
given  are  sustained  by  the  classics. 

It  is  easy  to  see  the  influence  of  the  imagination  of  the 
Baptists  in  explaining  the  case  of  the  eunuch.  They 
imagine  several  things :  first,  that  there  was  a  stream  of 
water  at  the  place  where  the  eunuch  was  baptized ;  secondly, 
that  the  stream  of  water  was  of  sufficient  depth  for  im- 
mersion ;  and  thirdly,  that  even  then  the  eunuch  was  im- 
mersed :  not  one  of  which  circumstances  is  referred  to  in 
the  scriptural  account  of  the  case.  There  is  no  proof  that 
there  was  a  stream  of  water  at  all  at  this  place;  or  if  a 
stream  was  there,  we  have  no  proof  that  it  was  a  foot  deep; 
or  if  a  foot  deep,  there  is  not  a  particle  of  proof  that  the 
eunuch  was  immersed.  And  so  imagination  supplies  all 
the  circumstances  in  the  baptism  of  Christ,  the  three 
thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  the  jailer,  Lydia,  and 
the  thousands  baptized  by  John,  in  order  to  make  out  a 
case  of  immersion :  but  the  plain  rules  we  have  applied  in 
this  chapter  furnish  incontestible  proof  that  immersion  was 
not  practised  in  one  of  these  instances.  On  every  hand  the 
Baptists  are  opposed  by  insurmountable  difficulties;  and  in 
my  judgment  at  least,  not  a  single  case  of  immersion  can  be 
fairly  proved  from  the  Bible  to  have  been  observed  in  the 
administration  of  the  sacrament  of  Christian  baptism.  If 
one  case  of  immersion  could  be  fairly  proved,  this  would  not 


84  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 


establish  the  exclusiveness  of  the  Baptists  with  respect  to 
mode,  unless  it  had  been  enjoined  as  invariable ;  but  as 
not  a  single  case  of  immersion  can  be  proved — a  fortiori, 
the  exclusiveness  of  the  Baptists  is  not  sustained  by  the 
Scriptures. 

But  we  go  one  step  farther,  and  proceed  to  show  what 
the  Greek  prepositions  do  mean  when  used  in  connection 
with  Christian  baptism.  They  are  four  in  number,  viz.  kv, 
en;  h<z,  eis ;  a-b,  apo ;  t/.,  ek,  or  e|,  ex — a  careful  examina- 
tion of  which  will  furnish  us  with  proof  that  there  is  nothing 
in  them  to  support  the  opinion  that  baptism  should  be  ad- 
ministered by  ininiersion.  We  begin  with  en.  It  has 
various  meanings. 

First.  It  primarily  denotes  the  time  and.  place  of  a  trans- 
action, without  specifying  mode.  "Now  when  Jesus  was 
born  in  (en)  Bethlehem  of  Judea,  in  (en)  the  days  of  Herod 
the  king :"  the,  time  and  place  of  the  birth  of  Christ.  "In 
(en)  those  days  came  John  the  Baptist,  preaching  in  (en) 
the  wilderness  of  Judea :"  the  time  and  place  of  John's 
preaching.  "  And  (Christ)  was  in  (en)  the  deserts  till  the 
day  of  his  showing  unto  Israel :"  the  place  where  Christ 
remained  in  retirement  till  he  entered  publicly  upon  his 
ministry.  "  And  there  were  in  (en)  the  same  country 
shepherds  abiding  in  the  field  :"  the  place  where  the  shep- 
herds were  attending  to  their  flocks.  "  And  John  did  bap- 
tize in  (en)  the  wilderness :"  the  place  where  he  baptized. 
"  And  these  things  were  done  in  (en)  Bethabara  beyond 
Jordan,  where  John  was  baptizing  :"  the  place  where  John 
was  baptizing  beyond  Jordan.  "  And  John  also  was  bap- 
tizing in  (en)  Enon,  near  to  Salim :"  the  place  where  he 
was  baptizing.  "  And  were  baptized  of  him  in  (en)  Jordan, 
confessing  their  sins  :"  the  place  merely  where  he  baptized, 
within  the  banks  of  the  river,  near  the  edge  of  the  water, 
and  yet  not  in  the  water.     Dr.  Carson  himself  admits  this '. 


« 
ORIGINAL    GREEK    PREPOSITIONS.  85 


u  Instead  of  keeping  John  the  Baptist  ten  hours  every  day 
in  the  water,  I  will  not  oblige  him  to  go  into  the  water  at 
all.  He  might  have  stood  on  the  bank.  He  might  have 
been  in  the  river,  yet  not  in  the  water :  ALL  within  the 
banks  is  the  RiYER."  On  Baptism,  pp.  336-7,  339. 
And  so  Richard  "Watson :  "  And  when  within  the  bed  of 
the  stream,  he  might  as  truly  be  said  to  be  in  the  river, 
when  mere  place  was  the  thing  to  be  pointed  out,  as  if  he 
had  been  immersed  in  the  water.  The  Jordan  in  this  respect 
is  rather  remarkable,  having,  according  to  Maundrell,  an 
outermost  bank  by  its  occasional  swellings."  The  remark 
of  this  traveller  is,  "  After  having  descended  the  outermost 
bank,  you  go  a  furlong  upon  a  level  ground,  before  you 
come  to  the  immediate  bank  of  the  river."  Theo.  Insts. 
p.  654.  A  furlong  is  the  eighth  part  of  a  mile,  that  is,  two 
hundred  and  twenty  yards.  One  anywhere  on  this  beach 
might  be  said  to  be  in  Jordan,  and  yet  "  not  in  the  water." 
Place  is  all  that  is  signified,  and  no  reference  whatever  is 
made  to  the  mode  of  baptism.  This  is  the  primary  rnean- 
JDg  of  in,  a  meaning  which  might  be  illustrated  by  pages 
of  quotations  from  Greek  writers.  To  give  but  a  single 
example:  k'zo^ov  8^  &  za>  y.r-.uj  r.epir.azwv,  "I  happened  to 
be  walking  in  the  garden."  Plato.  And  Buttman  sustains 
this  view ;  "  ''EN  stands  in  answer  to  the  question  where ; 
and  signifies  in,  often  also  by,  at,  among."  Grammar, 
p.  413. 

Secondly.  The  preposition  ev,  en,  indicates  the  instru- 
mental cause  or  means  employed  in  baptism.  u  I  indeed 
baptize  you  with  (en)  water."  "  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord 
— with  (en)  all  thy  heart,  and  with  (en)  all  thy  soul,  and 
with  (en)  all,"  &c.  "If  the  salt  have  lost  its  savor,  where- 
with (en  tini)  shall  it  be  salted?"  Thus,  in  the  phrase 
"  with  water,"  the  very  nature  of  the  case  renders  it 
necessary  that  en  be  rendered  with.     And  this  Dr.  Carsoc 


86  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 


admits  :  "  I  may  be  asked,  do  you  deny  that  it  (eii)  may 
be  translated  with  ?  I  do  not  deny  this,  yet  I  am  disposed 
to  lay  stress  on  it."  Carson  and  Cox  on  Baptism,  p.  191. 
In  one  case,  it  indicates  the  place  where  baptism  was  ad- 
ministered— as  in  Bethabara,  in  Enon,  in  Jordan;  and  in 
another  case,  it  signifies  the  instrumental  cause  or  means, 
governing  the  dative — as  "  with  water."  In  the  former  case, 
mode  is  not  signified;  in  the  latter  case,  immersion  is  out 
of  the  question.  All  that  can  be  said  of  en,  in  the  sense  of 
with,  is,  that  it  denotes  specifically  that  water  is  the  instru- 
ment used  in  performing  baptism  :  the  quantity  of  water 
used,  or  the  mode  of  using  it,  is  not  denoted  or  specified ; 
and  }"et  the  necessity  of  the  case  excludes  immersion.  The 
Baptists  frequently  give  us  the  following  version: — "For 
John  truly  immersed  in  -water ;  but  ye  shall  be  immersed 
in  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  objection  to  this  is,  that  in  the 
one  case,  as  water  is  properly  used  as  the  instrument,  in  the 
other  case,  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  is  the  active  agent,  is 
represented  as  a  passive  element  in  which  the  apostles  are 
plunged,  as  a  man  is  in  water — which  is  a  rendering  no* 
only  in  opposition  to  reason  and  sound  theology,  but  to  the 
history  of  the  case,  for  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  baptizing  the 
apostles,  sat  upon  them — a  statement  that,  if  it  imply  mode 
at  all.  favors  affusion  rather  than  immersion. 

The  other  prepositions  to  be  considered  are  eis,  eh  or  ex, 
and  apo.  Greek  prepositions  are  frequently  interchanged. 
"  Jesus  was  baptized  by  John  in  (eis)  Jordan" — the  only 
instance  of  eis  with  the  accusative  case  after  the  verb  bap- 
tizo.  Eis,  into,  in  this  passage,  is  substituted  for  en,  in. 
In  the  following  verse  we  have — "  And  straightway  coming 
up  out  of  the  water,"  &c.  The  preposition  here  employed 
is  apo,  from,  and  thus  the  proper  translation  is,  "from  the 
water,"  and  not  out  of  the  water.  This  Dr.  Carson  himself 
concedes  :  "  I  admit  the  proper  translation  of  apo  is  from, 


ORIGINAL   GREEK   PREPOSITIONS.  -  87 


and  not  out  of;  and  that  the  argument  from  the  former  is 
not  of  the  same  nature  with  that  which  is  founded  on  eh, 
out  of."  Cox  and  Carson  on  Baptism,  p.  200.  This  is  all 
we  wish  to  prove.  That  eis  does  not  mean  into  may  be  also 
proved  from  the  history  of  the  baptism  of  the  eunuch. 
"  They  both  went  down  into  (eis)  the  water."  Eis  may  in 
this  instance  be  translated  to.  "And  when  we  were  all 
fallen  to  (eis)  the  earth/'  not  into  the  earth.  "Jesus  there- 
fore cometh  to  (eis)  the  tomb  of  Lazarus."  "  Peter  there- 
fore went  forth,  and  that  other  disciple,  and  came  to  (eis) 
the  sepulchre.  So  they  both  ran  together;  and  that  other 
disciple  did  outrun  Peter,  and  came  first  to  (eis)  the  sepul- 
chre. Thus,  "  they  went  down  both — from  the  chariot — to 
(eis)  the  water."  It  may  be  replied,  "  They  both  came  up, 
out  of  (eh)  the  water,"  implying  that  both  had  been  into  the 
water.  But  eh,  in  this  passage  may  be  substituted  by  apo, 
as  in  many  instances  eis  is  placed  in  contrast  with  apo. 
u  From  (apo)  city  to  (eis)  city."  "  From  (apo)  Jerusalem 
to  (eis)  Jericho."  "  The  way  that  goeth  down  from  (apo) 
Jerusalem  to  (eis)  Gaza."  Matthew  and  Mark  use  apo 
(from)  instead  of  eh  (out  of)  when  they  describe  the 
Saviour's  departure  from  Jordan  after  his  baptism.  Be- 
sides, eh  is  often  used  to  denote  simply  the  point  from  which 
motion  is  made.  "  Howbeit  there  came  other  boats  from 
(eh)  Tiberias."  "  Get  thee  from  (eh)  thy  kindred."  "  Who 
shall  deliver  me  from  (eh)  the  body  of  this  death  ?"  "  Who 
hath  warned  you  to  flee  from  (apo)  the  wrath  to  come  ?" 
Thus,  we  may  translate  the  passages  under  consideration, 
"  And  straightway  coming  up  from  the  water" — and  "  they 
went  down  both  to  the  water — and  when  they  were  come  up 
from  the  water."  Any  one  conversant  with  the  Greek 
must  admit  the  justness  of  these  criticisms,  and  hence  comt 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  fact,  and  not  the  mode  of  baptism, 
is  all  that  is  intended  in  these  sacred  scriptures.     The  fact 


88         «  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 


of  baptism  is  positively  stated  and  settled :  the  mode  of 
baptism  in  these  cases,  is  a  matter  of  so  little  importance, 
that  it  is  left  to  inference ;  yet  the  history  of  the  fact  is  so 
plain,  that  inference  excludes  immersion,  and  supports 
affusion.  Thus,  on  every  hand,  a  candid  and  proper  ex- 
amination of  the  Greek  prepositions  which  are  used  in  con- 
nection with  baptism,  is  fatal  to  the  Baptist  theory  of 
immersion. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  HARMONIOUS  CONNECTION  OF  THE  MODE  WITH  THE 
KNOWN  CIRCUMSTANCES  OF  SPIRITUAL  BAPTISM,  AND 
THE   PLAN   OF   SALVATION. 

In  this  chapter,  we  continue  the  consideration  of  the 
mode  of  baptism.  In  the  preceding  chapters,  we  considered 
the  mode  of  baptism  as  it  is  plainly  inferred  from  the  Scrip- 
tures, the  original  word  baptizo,  and  the  original  Greek 
prepositions,  eis}  e7c,  ex,  and  apo.  As  we  have  regarded  it 
all  along  as  a  subject  of  inference,  we  now  proceed  to  the 
fourth  source  of  inference — 

4.  The  harmonious  connection  of  the  mode  with  the 
known  circumstances  of  spiritual  baptism,  and  the  plan  of 
salvation.  The  significant,  expressive,  and  striking  mean- 
ing of  water  baptism  is  best  set  forth  when  the  mode  of 
administering  it  conforms  to  the  mode  by  which  the  in- 
fluences of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  imparted  to  the  believer. 
The  most  proper  mode  of  baptism,  therefore,  is  that  which 
best  represents  the  spiritual  baptism,.  The  Scriptures  uni- 
versally set  forth  the  mode  of  the  Spirit's  agency  in  baptism 
under  the  ideas  of  "  sprinkling,"  "  pouring,"  "baptizing 
with" — and  a  corresponding  mode  of  external  baptism  may 


MODE    AND    CIRCUMSTANCES    HARMONIOUS.  89 


•served.  To  refer  to  but  few  instances.1  It  is  worthy 
of  observation,  that  whenever  reference  is  made  specifically 
to  baptism  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  immersion  is  never  once 
expressed  or  implied,  as  the  mode  employed.  Immersion, 
therefore,  has  nothing  in  it  significative  or  emblematical 
of  spiritual  baptism  j  and  as  a  mode  of  baptism,  it  is  without 
analogy  and  without  signification.  Moreover,  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  ridicule  sprinkling  and  pouring  as  modes  of  baptism, 
without  reflecting  upon  the  modes  adopted  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  imparting  spiritual  benefits  to  man — without  being 
more  than  indifferent  to  the  favorite  and  impressive  figures, 
allusions,  and  statements  of  the  sacred  writers,  when  they 
refer  to  the  manner  by  which  the  richest  blessings  of  the 
everlasting  covenant  are  communicated  to  the  heart  of  the 
believer.  Baptism  is  emblematical  both  of  the  effects  and 
mode  of  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  nothing  more 
as  an  emblem.  Immersion  may  be  emblematical  of  the 
effects  of  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  as  an  emblem 
of  the  mode  of  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  it  is  wholly 
defective.  But  sprinkling  and  pouring  are  expressive  em- 
blems in  both  these  respects,  and,  therefore,  are  to  be  pre- 
ferred to  immersion  as  modes  of  baptism.  The  use  of  water, 
in  any  mode,  may  be  emblematical  of  the  purifying  effects 
of  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  but  when  the  mode 
itself  has  in  it  no  emblematical  meaning,  baptism,  as  a  sensi- 
ble rite  of  the  church  is  so  far  defective — and  such  is  bap- 
tism by  immersion.  But  sprinkling  and  pouring,  being 
complete  in  their  emblematical  character,  are  the  most 
appropriate  modes  of  administering  the  initiating  sacrament 
of  the  Christian  church.2     But  to  be  more  particular. 

1  Isa.  xliy.  3.  Ezek.  xxxix.  29.  Joel  ii.  28,  29.  Zech.  xii.  10. 
Acts  ii.  17,  18;  x.  45.  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25,  26.  Isa.  Hi.  15.  Ps.  lxxii.  6. 
Hosea  vi.  3. 

2  "  To  say  that  it  [immersion]  figures  our  spiritual  death  and  resurrec- 

8* 


90  THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


First.  Consider  the  united  testimony  of  the  prophet  Joel, 
John  the  Baptist,  the  blessed  Jesus,  St.  Luke,  and  the 
apostle  Peter.  Joel :  "  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  afterward 
that  I  will  pour  out — i/.yiw — my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh/'  &c. 
John,  referring  to  Christ  who  should  fulfil  this  prophecy, 
declares,  "He  shall  baptize — paanisei — you  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  with  fire."  And  Jesus  explains  the  meaning  of 
John,  and  confirms  the  prophecy  of  Joel.  "  For  truly 
John  baptized — ipdwctaev — with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  bap- 
tized— {3curri<rihfGe<f&e — with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days 
hence."  And  therefore,  in  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy  of 
Christ,  Luke  tells  you:  "And  there  appeared  unto  them 
(the  apostles  on  the  day  of  Pentecost)  cloven  tongues,  as  of 
fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them,  and  they  were  all  filled 
with  the  Holy  Ghost."  And  now  Peter  explains  the  whole 
matter :  "  This  is  that  which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet 
Joel,  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  saith  God, 
I  will  pour  out — zxyiu) — my  Spirit  on  all  flesh,"  &c,  and 
Peter  also  explains  the  baptism  of  John.  "  As  I  began  to 
speak,"  says  he,  referring  to  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles, 
"  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them  as  on  us  at  the  beginning, 
(Pentecost.)  Then  remembered  I  the  word  of  the  Lord  that 
he  said,  John  indeed  "baptized  you  with  icater,  but  ye  shall 
be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost.''  Here  the  mode  of 
spiritual  baptism  is  set  forth  by  Joel,  John  the  Baptist,  our 
Saviour,  Luke,  and  Peter ;  and  it  will  be  safe  to  follow  such 
guides  in  adopting  the  mode  of  external  baptism. 

Secondly.  St.  Paul,  1  Cor.  x.  1,  2  :  "  Moreover  brethren, 
I  would  not  that  ye  should  be  ignorant  how  that  all  our 
fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the 


tion,  has,  we  have  seen,  no  authority  from  the  texts  used  to  prove  it; 
and  to  make  a  sudden  pop  under  the  water  to  be  emblematical  of  burial, 
is  as  far-fetched  a  conceit  as  any  which  adorns  the  Emblems  of  Quarks, 
without  any  portion  of  the  ingenuity."     Watson's  Insts.  vol.  ii.  660. 


MODE   AND    CIRCUMSTANCES    HARMONIOUS.    ■  91 


sea,  and  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses,  in  the  cloud,  and  in 
the  sea."  In  this  case,  as  already  observed,  God  himself 
was  the  administrator,  and  is  the  highest  authority  for  us 
The  cloud  passes  from  the  front  to  the  rear,  between  the  Is 
raelites  and  the  Egyptians,  and  in  passing  over  rains  upon  tho 
Israelites,  according  to  the  Psalmist :  "  the  clouds  poured 
out  water." 3  ,  And  Paul  says,  they  were  baptized  in  the  sea. 
But  Moses  says,  they  went  over  on  dry  ground :  "and  tho 
children  of  Israel  went  into  the  midst  of  the  sea  on  the  dry 
ground. " 4  And  observe  specially  the  21st  verse  of  the 
same  chapter :  "  And  Moses  stretched  out  his  hand  over 
the  sea,  and  the  Lord  caused  the  sea  to  go  back  by  a  strong 
east  wind  all  that  night,  and  made  the  sea  dry  land,  and 
the  waters  were  divided."  This  strong  east  wind,  agitating 
the  waters,  recoiling  and  convolving  tumultuously,  caused 
the  spray  from  the  surges  to  dash  over  the  watery  precipices 
on  either  hand,  and  thus  sprinkle  the  wondering  Israelites 
in  the  sea,  without  immersing  one  of  them.  Had  the  Israel- 
ites been  immersed  on  this  occasion,  they  would  have  fared 
no  better  than  the  Egyptians,  and  no  deliverance  would  have 
been  wrought  in  their  case.  They  could  not  have  been 
immersed  on  dry  land.  They  could  not  have  been  immersed, 
in  the  sea  had  the  cloud  come  down  upon  them,  for  then  they 
would  have  been  overwhelmed,  and  not  immersed  in  the 
proper  sense  of  the  term ;  but  the  cloud  passed  over  them,  to 
a  position  between  them  and  the  Egyptians.  They  could  not 
have  been  immersed  in  the  sea,  except  by  the  closing  of  the 
sea  over  them ;  but  they  went  over  on  dry  land.  And  yet 
they  were  all  baptized ;  and  it  is  inconceivable  how  they  were 
baptized  in  any  other  way  than  by  sprinkling  or  pouring. 
The  circumstances  of  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea,  interpret 
them  as  you  will,  cannot  favor  immersion,  or  oppose  sprin- 

*  Ps.  lxxvii.  16.  4  Ex.  xiv.  22. 


92  <  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


kling  or  pouring.  It  is  worthy  of  observation  in  passing, 
that,  all  the  children  likewise,  were  baptized  in  this  instance. 
Thirdly.  Hear  Isaiah  :  "  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many 
nations/'5  This  prophecy  doubtless  has  reference  to  the 
universality  and  fulness  of  the  gospel  blessings;  and  the 
argument  respecting  the  mode  of  their  communication  is  a 
brief  one.  If  the  word  "  sprinkle''  is  to  be  taken  literally, 
then  the  mode  is  at  once  specified.  Or,  if  the  word  "  sprin- 
kle" has  a  spiritual  meaning,  and  is  to  be  taken  figuratively, 
then  the  outward  baptism  ought  to  correspond  to  the  inward 
baptism ;  so  that  in  either  case,  the  mode  of  external  bap- 
tism is  easily  suggested.  It  was  this  passage  of  Scripture 
that  Philip  found  the  eunuch  examining,  and  hence  we  in- 
fer, that  when  he  descended  from  his  chariot  to  the  water, 
he  was  baptized  by  "sprinkling."6 

5  Isa.  lii.  15. 

6  In  order  to  evade  the  force  of  this  argument,  the  Baptists  have  made 
a  fruitless  effort  to  distort  the  original  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  by  re- 
ferring to  the  Septuagint  translation.  "The  LXX  translated  this  word 
[yazzeh]  into  thaunuuotUai,  which  signifies  either  to  astonish,  or  to  cause 
to  exult  or  rejoice.  But  in  no  instance  is  it  equivalent  to  sprinkle,  as  is 
known  by  all  who  understand  the  Greek  language."  Chapin's  Letters, 
p.  48.  The  same  ground  is  taken  by  the  Baptists  in  the  "Baptismal 
Question"  in  ''Review"  by  Wm.  Hague,  p.  26.  In  the  first  place,  the 
question  is  not  to  be  settled  by  the  Septuagint,  but  by  the  original 
Hebrew.  In  the  second  place,  the  Hebrew  word  yazzeh  uniformly  means 
in  the  Scripture  to  sprinkle.  As,  a  Thou  shalt  take  the  blood  that  is 
upon  the  altar,  and  of  the  anointing  oil,  and  sprinkle  it  upon  Aaron,"  &e. 
Ex.  xxix.  21.  "And  the  priest  shall  dip  his  finger  in  the  blood,  and 
sprinkle  of  the  blood  seven  times."  Lev.  iv.  6.  "And  he  shall  sprinkle 
of  the  blood  of  the  sin  offering  upon  the  east  side  of  the  altar."  Lev.  v.  9. 
"And  he  shall  sprinkle  upon  him  that  is  cleansed  from  the  leprosy  seven 
times."  Lev.  xiv.  7.  And  the  Vulgate  translation  of  the  word  is  in  har- 
mony with  the  Hebrew  word:  " Iste  asperget gentes  multas."  Isa.  lii.  15. 
In  the  third  place,  in  reference  to  this  passage,  Professor  Ripley  observes, 
"Was  the  prophet,  I  ask,  speaking  of  any  particular  outward  observance 
to  be  performed;  or  did  he  simply  convey  the  idea  that  God  would  purify 
his  people  from  their  iniquity  ?     And  did  he  not  represent  this  moral 


MODE   AND   CIRCUMSTANCES    HARMONIOUS.  93 


Fourthly.  Ezekiel  comes  next.  The  Jews  are  yet  to  be 
converted  and  introduced  into  the  Christian  church,  and  this 
is  to  he  formally  set  forth  by  baptism,  the  initiating  sacra- 
ment of  the  Christian  dispensation.  Hear  the  prophet, 
hundreds  of  years  before  this  event :  "  For  I  will  take  you 
from  among  the  heathen,  &c,  then  will  I  sprinkle  clean 
water  upon  you,"  &c.7  Whether  literal  or  figurative,  sprin- 
kling is  the  mode  of  baptism  indicated  by  the  prophet. 

Fifthly.  Consider  Peter's  question  respecting  the  baptism 
of  Cornelius  and  his  family.  "  Can  any  forbid  water  that 
these  should  not  be  baptized,  who  have  received  the  Holy 
Ghost  as  well  as  we  ?"  8  This  question  presents  three  things  : 
first,  that  the  spiritual  baptism  was  received  he/ore  the  ex- 
ternal baptism ;  secondly,  the  propriety  of  the  correspond- 
ence between  the  mode  of  the  inward  and  outward  baptism ; 
and  thirdly,  the  strong  probability  that  the  water  icas  brought 
and  applied.  "  Can  any  forbid  water,"  that  it  should  be 
brought  and  applied  to  a  baptismal  use  in  the  case  of  these 
persons  who  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we  ? 

Sixthly.  Matthew  shall  be  heard.  "  Then  went  out  to  him 
[John  the  Baptist]  Jerusalem,  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region 
round  about  Jordan,  and  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan, 
confessing  their  sins."9  We  have  no  objection  to  the  trans- 
lation of  the  preposition  ev — en — in  this  instance,  in  our 
English  version.  It  is  translated  correctly.  The  trans- 
lators were  too  well  acquainted  with  the  nature  of  the  river 
Jordan  to  translate  it  otherwise,  as  we  shall  presently 
see.     As  John  was  now  opening  a  new  dispensation,  and  as 

purifying  by  the  emblem  of  sprinkling,  to  which  their  ritual  had  ac- 
customed them  as  significant  of  purification  ?"  Ripley's  Exam,  of  Stuart, 
p.  139. 

Professor  Ripley,  a  Baptist,  had  too  much  sense  to  give  the  original 
Hebrew  word  the  meaning  assigned  to  it  in  the  Septuagint. 

-  Ezek.  xxxvi.  24,  26.  8  Acts  x.  47.  9  Matt.  iii.  5,  6. 


94  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


great  multitudes  were  daily  initiated  by  baptism,  it  was 
necessary  that  he  should  take  his  position  at  some  most 
eligible  place.  In  the  southern  deserts  of  Judea,  the  streams 
are  few  and  scanty,  probably  in  the  summer  entirely  dried 
up.  The  nearest  large  body  of  water  is  the  Dead  Sea.  The 
western  banks  of  this  great  lake  are  mostly  rugged  and  pre- 
cipitous; besides,  natural  feeling  and  religious  awe  would 
have  caused  the  people  to  shrink  from  receiving  the  holy 
ordinance  in  these  fetid,  unwholesome,  and  accursed  waters. 
The  usual  station,  therefore,  which  John  selected,  was 
Bethabara,  the  ford  of  Jordan,  which  tradition  pointed  out 
as  the  place  where  the  waters  divided  before  the  ark.  Here, 
though  the  adjacent  region  toward  Jerusalem  is  wild  and 
desert,  the  immediate  shores  offer  spots  of  great  convenience 
and  picturesque  beauty.  The  Jordan  has  a  kind  of  double 
channel.  In  its  summer  course,  the  shelving  banks,  to 
the  tops  of  which  the  waters  reach  at  its  period  of  flood, 
are  covered  with  acacia  and  other  trees  of  great  luxuriance, 
and  amid  the  rich  vegetation  and  grateful  shade  afforded  at 
this  spot,  Italian  painters  have  imagined  the  unruffled 
Jordan  reflecting  the  wondering  multitudes  of  every  class 
and  age,  gathered  around  with  deep  interest  and  intense 
curiosity,  and  John  performing  the  sacred  rite  to  listening 
and  devotional  thousands.  The  multitudes  baptized  went 
down  into  the  Jordan  to  the  water  in  the  inner  channel,  and 
were  baptized — how?  Let  John  himself  answer:  "I  in- 
deed baptize  you  with  water" — here  in  Jordan,  on  the  bank 
of  the  inner  channel.  This  explains  Christ's  coming  up 
out  of,  or  from — a-6 — the  water,  and  reconciles  Matthew 
and  John,  the  former  saying  that  the  ordinance  was  ad- 
ministered in  Jordan,  and  the  latter  asserting  that  he  bap- 
tized with  water.  One  might  have  gone  down  into  Jordan 
without  touching  the  water.  We  would  not  have  the  trans- 
lation altered.     This  relieves   the    minds  of  such   as  are 


MODE   AND    CIRCUMSTANCES    HARMONIOUS.  05 


troubled  about  the  example  of  Christ,  since  we  conclude 
that  as  Christ  ascended  from  the  bank  of  the  .inner  channel, 
a  radiant  light,  with  the  rapid  and  undulating  motion  of  a 
dove,  descended  upon  him,  and  the  voice  from  heaven  was 
heard,  u  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased. " 

That  the  phrase  "in  Jordan"  does  not  necessarily  involve 
the  idea  of  immersion,  let  us  consider  the  passage  of  the 
Israelites  over  Jordan  as  described  by  Joshua  :  "  And  thou 
shalt  command  the  priests  that  bear  the  ark  of  the  covenant, 
saying,  when  ye  are  come  to  the  brink  of  the  water  of  Jor- 
dan, ye  shall  stand  still  in  Jordan." 10  And  yet  they  were 
not  immersed,  for  the  waters  were  immediately  divided,  and 
the  priests  stood  firm  on  dry  ground,  in  the  midst  of 
Jordan,  and  all  the  Israelites  passed  over  on  dry  ground. 
Finally,  we  have  seen,  in  the  examination  of  the  original 
Greek  prepositions,  in  the  preceding  chapter,  that  h,  the 
preposition  here  used,  never  means  into,  except  in  connec- 
tion with  the  verb,  and  in  this  case  it  is  used  disconnected 
from  the  verb,  and,  therefore,  in  this  place  it  cannot  denote 
immersion. 

Thus,  as  baptism  in  a  spiritual  sense  is  set  forth  by  the 
prophets,  Christ,  and  his  apostles,  under  the  ideas  of  sprin- 
kling and  pouring;  therefore  the  external  mode  of  baptism 
should  be  sprinkling  or  pouring,  to  correspond  to  the  mode 
of  spiritual  baptism.  In  a  word,  there  can  be  no  force  or 
importance  at  all  in  the  mere  mode,  unless  it  be  of  such  a 
significative  character  as  to  represent  the  internal  spiritual 
baptism,  that  thereby  the  harmony  of  the  whole  plan  of  re- 
demption may  be  preserved.  And  hence,  we  infer,  that 
sprinkling  and  pouring  are  the  most  appropriate  modes  of 
external  baptism,  because  they  preserve  the  harmony,  con- 

i°Jo?h.  Hi  3. 


96  THE    MOLE    OF    BAPTISM. 


nection,  and  simplicity  of  the  whole  Christian  scheme.  We 
do  not,  however,  exclude  immersion  :  all  we  mean  is,  that 
immersion  cannot  be  sustained  on  the  ground  of  analogy 
and  the  rational  probabilities  connected  with  the  instances 
of  baptism  we  have  mentioned.  All  the  force  of  significa- 
tion, analogy,  probability,  and  consistency  is  in  favor  of 
sprinkling  and  pouring  as  the  most  proper  modes  of  ad- 
ministering the  initiating  sacrament  of  the  Christian  dispen- 
sation :  on  these  grounds,  immersion  cannot  be  sustained  even 
as  a  proper  mode — much  less  as  the  most  proper,  or  as  the 
only  proper  mode.  A  single  remark  shall  close  this  chapter. 
The  idea  of  unity  arises  in  the  mind  long  before  investiga- 
tion and  comparison  have  verified  it.  While  we  are  com- 
bining a  thousand  particulars,  each  suggests  the  necessity 
of  something  remaining  to  complete  the  process,  and,  every 
step  of  the  process,  we  anticipate  unity  and  harmony  in  the 
final  result.  "When  the  path  of  investigation  is  plain  and 
easy,  any  incongruity  or  disagreement  that  arises  is  readily 
perceived.  The  system  of  evangelical  truth  is  consistent  in 
all  its  principles  and  institutions,  and  in  the  examination  of 
the  Scriptures  in  this  chapter,  we  perceive  in  the  dogma  of 
immersion  such  an  incongruity  or  disagreement,  that  we 
cannot  reconcile  it  with  the  general  system  of  truth.  The 
Baptists  give  more  importance  to  immersion  than  to  any 
other  external  service  of  Christianity — an  importance,  which 
neither  the  Bible,  nor  reason,  nor  common  sense  justifies — 
a  mode  of  an  ordinance  which  is  less  adapted  than  any  other 
to  impress  the  heart  with  moral  feelings  and  religious  emo- 
tions. Christ  and  his  apostles  never  made  such  ado  about, 
the  mode  of  any  institution  of  Christianity,  especially  of 
that  which  is  of  inferior  importance  when  compared  with  the 
rest.  It  is  not  only  an  incongruity,  but  a  bold  innovation,  to 
invest  baptism  with  the  same  import  which  Christ  and 
his  apostles  connected  specifically  and  distinctly  with  the 


MODE    AND    CIRCUMSTANCES    HARMONIOUS.  97 


eucbarist,  and  thus,  in  a  great  degree,  to  confound  the  two 
sacraments.  Why  say  so  much  about  the  "  solemn  associa- 
tions' '  and  "  holy  tendencies"  of  immersion,  which,  indeed, 
few  at  any  time  can  even  imagine  to  be  suggested  by  it,  and 
say  nothing  about  the  external  power  and  sacred  influence 
of  the  eucharist,  the  Sabbath  day,  and  ministry,  which 
occur  so  often  in  one's  life,  and  which  all  most  readily 
admit  ?  Why  this  strenuous,  persevering,  and  pertinacious 
effort  to  exalt  to  supreme  importance  the  mere  mode  of  an 
ordinance,  which,  though  of  great  importance,  Paul  regarded 
of  so  little  weight  compared  with  the  spirituality  of  the  gos- 
pel, as  to  thank  God  that  he  had  baptized  but  few  among 
the  Corinthians?  Do  immersionists  ever  affirm,  as  Paul 
did,  that  they  were  sent,  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the 
gospel  ?  Do  not  immersionists  direct  their  preaching  rather 
to  the  icater  of  some  pond  or  stream,  than  to  the  blood  of 
Jesus?  Does  not  such  zeal  justly  merit  the  rebuke  of 
Christ:  "If  ye  had  known  what  that  meaneth,  I willliave 
mercy  and  not  sacrifice,  ye  would  not  have  condemned  the 
guiltless?"  And  may  they  not  properly  be  classed  with 
Peter,  who,  when  Christ  bathed  the  feet  of  the  disciples, 
considered  that  not  enough,  but  which  Christ  thought  to  be 
sufficient  ? 

But  the  Baptists  reply,  "  immersion  is  a  cross  to  be  taken 
up."  Then  why  are  not  crosses  connected  with  all  the 
other  external  services  of  Christianity?  Why  select  this 
from  all  the  rest,  and  make  it  more  burdensome  than  all  the 
rest  ?  Immersion,  indeed,  is  often  exceedingly  inconvenient, 
and  if  this  is  to  be  considered  a  cross,  especially  to  females, 
why  not  connect  some  inconvenience  with  each  of  the  other 
institutions  of  Christianity,  and  call  it  a  cross,  and  so  have 
a  cross  to  be  taken  up  in  each  case  ?  Why  hit  upon  the 
mode  of  baptism  as  a  cross,  and  invest  it  with  a  religious 
sanctity  ?    If  there  is  a  spiritual  crucifixion  in  immersion, 


98  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


why  are  not  all  believers  who  are  immersed,  more  exemplary 
than  other  Christians  ?  But  the  difference,  if  any  exists,  is 
not  so  great  as  to  be  perceived  in  a  single  instance  :  it  never 
yet  has  appeared  that  a  man  was  a  better  Christian  than  his 
pious  neighbor,  because  he  was  immersed.  What !  does  it 
harmonize  with  sound  views  of  the  Christian  system,  that 
nearly  the  whole  church  should  be  regarded  as  unbaptized, 
as  in  a  state  of  disobedience,  unworthy  of  recognition  as 
Christians,  and  as  worthy  of  exclusion  from  the  communion 
table,  because  of  difference  in  opinion  and  practice  respecting 
the  mode  of  a  religious  ordinance  ?  Is  it  rational  that  the 
Baptists  should  make  difference  in  opinion  respecting  the 
mere  mode  of  an  ordinance  of  Christianity,  a  sufficient 
ground  for  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  organization  that  pre- 
cludes the  most  intimate  union  with  all  other  branches  of 
the  Christian  church  ?  Especially  when  the  ground  of  this 
preclusion  has  not  incorporated  in  it  one  single  element  or 
doctrine  of  the  plan  of  salvation  ?  Indeed,  destitute  of  con- 
nection and  harmony  with  the  plan  of  salvation,  the  doc- 
trine of  exclusive  immersion  might  be  safely  expunged  from 
the  creed  of  the  Baptist  church,  and  so  a  uniform  practice 
in  the  administration  of  the  sacraments  might  be  intr  - 
duced,  by  which  not  only  all  Christendom  would  rejoice,  but 
the  success  of  Christianity  be  the  more  rapidly  promoted. 


THE    CIRCUMSTANTIAL   NATURE,  ETC.  99 


CHAPTER  IV. 

TlIE  CIRCUMSTANTIAL  NATURE  OF  THE  INSTITUTIONS 
OP  CHRISTIANITY  LEFT  TO  THE  DISCRETION  OF  THE 
CHURCH. 

5.  The  substantial  nature  of  the  institutions  of  Chris- 
tianity is  all  that  is  specifically  enjoined  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles  as  binding  upon  the  church  in  all  ages  :  the  mode, 
or  circumstantial  nature  of  the  institutions  of  Christianity, 
is  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  church. 

First.  Man  is  substantially  the  same  everywhere,  and 
always.  Hence,  the  truth  of  God,  adapted  to  man's  sub- 
stantial nature,  is  immutable.  But  circumstantially,  man 
is  infinitely  various ;  and  hence  changes  may  be  made  in  the 
external  government  of  the  church,  as  circumstances  may 
require,  provided  nothing  be  done  which  is  in  conflict  with 
the  essential  principles  of  the  gospel.  That  is,  while  preach- 
ing, prayer,  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  day,  the  sacra- 
ments, &c.  are  essential,  and  enjoined  as  obligatory  to  the 
end  of  time,  as  adapted  to  man's  substantial  nature;  the 
mode  of  preaching,  of  praying,  of  observing  the  Lord's  day, 
and  of  administering  the  sacraments,  is  non-essential,  and 
indifferent,  and  so  may  be  adapted  to  man's  circumstantial 
nature,  whatever  it  may  be,  provided  it  be  not  immoral  or 
irrational.  As  man's  circumstantial  nature  is  infinitely 
various,  the  exercise  of  power  in  matters  in  themselves  not 
essential  and  indifferent,  such  as  the  regulation  of  outward 
forms  and  ceremonies  to  suit  different,  ages  and  countries,  is 
left  to  the  discretion  of  uninspired  men.     It  is  true,  this 


100  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


power  may  be  abused,  and  it  has  been,  by  the  church ;  but 
a  sufficient  restriction  is  found  in  the  maxim,  that  no  out 
ward  form  or  ceremony  is  to  be  adopted  and  practised  which 
is  inconsistent  with  the  plain  and  immutable  truth  of  God. 
Such  are  the  imperfections  of  man,  and  the  vicissitudes  to 
which  he  is  essentially  exposed,  that  in  many  respects,  no 
form  of  external  church  government  can  be  permanent  and 
uniform ;  and  hence,  in  the  nature  of  things,  the  church,  in 
its  external  constitution,  must  be  subject  to  various  changes 
and  modifications.  But  the  spirit  or  essential  principles  of 
the  church,  must  never  be  compromitted,  nor  in  any  case  be 
modified  or  weakened,  to  suit  the  imperfections  of  man,  or 
the  changes  of  time.  Through  all  prosperous  and  calami- 
tous events  of  history,  the  purity  and  force  of  original  prin- 
ciples must  be  preserved,  and  the  lustre  of  truth  remain 
undimmed.  However  its  limits  may  be  extended,  or  its 
influence  augmented, .  or  its  authority  respected,  from  age  to 
age,  the  essential  truth  of  the  Bible  is  to  be  preserved  in  its 
original  spirit  and  scope.  The  laws  which  are  to  govern  the 
church,  and  which  are  the  centre  of  union,  are  of  two  kinds : 
those  which  are  divine,  enacted  by  God  himself,  contained 
in  the  Bible,  immutable,  consisting  of  doctrines  to  be  be- 
lieved, the  credenda,  and  doctrines  to  be  practised,  the 
agenda,  and  precepts  which  enjoin  experience,  all  of  which 
are  adapted  to  all  forms  of  humanity,  in  all  ages  of  time ; 
and  those  which  are  enacted  by  the  church,  viz.  rules  and 
regulations  for  the  better  administration  of  the  word,  the 
sacraments,  and  discipline.  The  divine  laws  are  the  basis 
of  the  unity  of  the  church  :  the  ecclesiastical  are  the  basis 
of  variety  in  Christian  communities ;  that  is,  there  may  be 
a  difference  of  opinion  as  to  mode  of  worship,  and  the  man- 
ner of  observing  the  ordinances  of  Christianity,  but  this 
difference  must,  in  all  eases,  be  in  harmony  with  the  gospel 
and  Divine  Providence,  and  not  cause  a  difference  in  re- 


THE    CIRCUMSTANTIAL    NATURE,  ETC.  101 


ligious  practice,  or  a  departure  in  the  least  degree  from  the 
simplicity  and  spirit  of  the  gospel.  Thus,  the  church  of 
Christ,  according  to  evangelical  principles,  is  universal, 
that  is,  "  one  body ;"  and  though  separated  by  the  necessity 
of  providential  circumstances,  and  existing  in  different 
places  and  ages,  and  governed  by  different  modes  of  external 
government,  it  retains  all  the  unity  possible.  And  so  the 
evangelical  ordinances  are  the  rights,  not  only  of  one  branch 
of  the  Christian  church,  but  of  the  whole  church  of 
Christ;  and  hence,  a  person  who  receives  baptism  from 
one  branch  of  the  Christian  church  becomes  a  member  of 
the  "  one  body,"  or  universal  church,  that  is,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Acts,  he  is  "  added  to  the  church."  And  so  a 
person  who  joins  in  the  Lord's  supper  with  one  branch  of 
the  church,  unites  with  the  whole  church,  in  every  place, 
who  "  show  forth"  the  Lord's  "  death."  And  so  also  when 
he  forfeits  right  to  be  associated  with  one  branch  of  the 
church,  he  ceases  to  be  a  member  of  the  universal  church. 

Ecclesiastical  government  is  the  science  of  adaptations  in 
harmony  with  the  spirit  of  the  gospel.  No  ecclesiastical 
form  of  government  can  be  immutable,  and  hence,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  very  nature  of  things,  no  rules  and  regu- 
lations of  a  fixed  and  immutable  character  are  prescribed  in 
the  Bible.  The  gospel  is  designed  to  improve  and  exalt 
mankind,  and  hence,  rules  and  regulations,  applicable  in  the 
earlier  stages  of  improvement  in  any  nation,  or  community, 
may  not  be  applicable  in  some  subsequent  advanced  stage 
of  progress.  The  old  rules  and  regulations  may  now  be 
obsolete  and  inapplicable,  and  new  rules  and  regulations 
adapted  to  the  new  condition  are  required;  but  in  the 
adoption  of  new  rules,  for  the  new  condition,  no  principle 
of  the  gospel,  we  repeat,  is  to  be  sacrificed  or  compromitted. 
The  law  of  external  progress  requires  a  corresponding  ex- 
terna]   change.      The    different    habits,   manners,  pursuits, 

9- 


102  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 


employments,  professions,  climate,  and  character  of  different 
nations,  as  well  as  their  relative  local  intelligence,  and  re- 
lative moral  and  political  improvement,  present  insurmount- 
able barriers  to  any  uniform  system  of  external  church  go- 
vernment, and  necessarily  require  that  there  be  correspond- 
ing modifications  in  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  church. 
Thus,  the  positive  and  invariable  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the 
peculiar  people  of  the  Jews  were  regarded  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles  as  unsuitable  to  "  all  nations/'  and  so  abrogated, 
and  the  ceremonial  form  of  the  church  left  open  for  the  re- 
quired modification  and  adaptation,  to  u  the  end  of  the  world." 
The  apostles  made  no  modifications,  repeals,  or  changes  in 
church  government  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  the  com- 
mandments given  to  them  by  Christ.  They  were  invested 
with  authority  to  provide  for  the  wants  of  the  church  as  they 
should  arise.  Such  forms,  practices,  and  institutions  of  the 
church  as  were  of  such  a  nature  as  to  require  no  change,  are 
recorded  as  such  in  Scripture  :  the  rest  are  omitted.  Thus, 
the  form  of  baptism,  "  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  is  of  such  a  nature  as  to  re- 
quire no  change  to  the  end  of  the  world.  Mere  modes  are 
all  omitted;  the  substance  only  is  of  divine  appointment, 
and  the  adoption  of  any  mode  in  harmony  with  the  substance 
is  left  optional  with  the  church.  Though  the  sacred  writers 
speak  of  baptism  again  and  again,  directly  and  indirectly, 
and  under  a  variety  of  aspects,  they  have  not  stated  a  single 
term,  or  fact,  or  figure,  that  defines  clearly  what  mode  was 
employed,  in  a  single  instance,  and  that  puts  the  question 
of  mode  beyond  a  doubt ;  and  yet  every  instance  recorded  is 
reconcilable  with  perfusion  and  sprinkling,  while  not  one  is 
related  which,  in  our  judgment  at  least,  can  be  ration- 
ally reconciled  with  plunging  or  immersion.  If  then  the 
apostles  themselves  did  not  regard  the  mode  they  employed, 
in  any  case,  to  be  of  such  importance  as  to  require  uncquivo- 


THE    CIRCUMSTANTIAL   NATURE,  ETC.  103 


cal  specification,  it  is  evident  that  they  did  not  regard  mere 
mode  as  an  essential  matter,  and  so  have  left  the  church  at 
liberty  to  vary  the  mode  as  circumstances  may  require. 

Secondly.  That  the  circumstantial  nature  of  the  institu- 
tions of  Christianity  is  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  church, 
mat/  be  proved  from  analogy. 

The  Lord's  supper  is  a  divine  and  positive  institution, 
and  yet  the  mode  of  celebrating  it  is  not  specifically  enjoined, 
though  we  know  precisely  the  circumstances  and  the  mode 
of  its  celebration  by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles.  They  met 
in  the  night ;  we  meet  in  the  day.  They  met  on  Thursday  ; 
we  meet  on  Sunday.  They  met  in  an  upper  chamber  of  a 
private  dwelling;  we  meet  in  the  church,  or  house  o£ public 
worship.  They  used  unleavened  bread,  and  the  pure  juice 
of  the  grape;  we  regard  these  particulars  as  indifferent. 
They  received  the  sacrament  in  a  recumbent  posture;  the 
church  now  receives  it  standing,  sitting,  or  kneeling.  Now 
there  is  not  a  church  in  Christendom  that  conforms  to  the 
circumstances  of  the  apostolic  mode  of  receiving  this  sacra- 
ment. It  is  universally  conceded,  that  the  practice  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles  as  to  the  mode  of  receiving  one  of  the  sacra- 
ments does  not  bind  us.  If  Christ  and  his  apostles  regarded 
the  circumstantial  nature  of  one  of  the  sacraments  of  so  little 
consequence  as  not  to  make  it  binding  upon  us,  even  though 
the  circumstances  of  its  original  celebration  are  definitely 
stated,  it  is  evident  that  they  regarded  the  mode  of  observing 
the  other  sacrament  also  of  no  consequence.  Indeed,  by  strict 
analogy,  though  the  mode  of  baptism  had  been  made  a 
matter  of  specific  sacred  history,  even  then  the  apostolic 
mode  would  not  be  any  more  binding  upon  us  than  the 
apostolic  mode  of  receiving  the  eucharist  is,  unless  it  had 
been  positively  and  specifically  excepted  and  eniomed  as 
binding  upon  all  people  and  in  all  ages.  But  as  tne  apos- 
tolic modp  of  baptism  is  not  even  definitely  stated,  it  is  in- 


10-f  THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


conceivable  how  the  Baptist  can  rationally  make  an  excep- 
tion in  this  case. 

Thirdly.  That  the  circumstantial  nature  of  the  institutions 
of  Christianity  is  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  church,  is  con- 
firmed by  fact.  All  evangelical  churches,  though  baptized 
in  different  ways,  are  equally  regarded  by  God  as  Christians, 
as  well  those  who  are  baptized  by  immersion  as  those  who 
are  baptized  by  sprinkling  or  affusion.  They  all  receive  the 
regenerating  and  sanctifying  grace  of  God — they  all  ex- 
perience an  ardent  love  for  the  Saviour,  and  manifest  an 
intense  and  laudable  zeal  for  the  promotion  of  his  cause 
among  men— they  all  labor  with  success  in  the  cause  of 
Christ — they  all  receive  gracious  answers  to  prayer  in  seasons 
of  affliction  and  temptation  and  trial — they  all  enjoy  the 
special  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  proper  observance 
of  the  sacraments — they  all  enjoy  a  special  spiritual  profit  in 
preaching  and  hearing  the  word,  and  in  singing  the  praise 
of  God — they  all  enjoy  the  presence  of  God  in  the  hour  of 
death — they  all  are  received  into  the  everlasting  kingdom 
of  God — and  they  all  will  be  judged  worthy  of  eternal  life, 
and  exalted  to  as  high  degree  of  blessedness  in  heaven. 
This  is  enough — God's  seal  of  approbation  on  earth  is  enough 
— his  seal  and  welcome  on  the  last  day  will  be  enough — 
enough  to  prove  that  God  does  not  consider  diversity  of 
opinion  as  to  the  mode  of  baptism  to  be  of  essential  conse- 
quence in  the  accomplishment  of  the  great  interests  of  re- 
ligion, personal  and  relative.  Do  not  the  Baptists  place 
themselves  in  opposition  to  the  mind  of  God  ?  Do  not  the 
Baptists  make  requisitions  at  variance  with  the  Divine 
administration? 

We  shall  close  this  branch  of  the  argument  with  two  or 
three  quotations.  Grotius  observes,  that  "ritual  institu- 
tions must  give  way  not  only  to  a  public  necessity,  but  to  a 
public  benefit  and  advantage."     The  pious  Mr.  Henry  say,^, 


ETC.  105 

"let  the  circumstance  give  way  to  the  substance,  and  let  not 
the  thing  itself  be  lost  upon  a  nicety  about  time."  And 
Luther  remarks,  "It  is  not  the  water  that  produces  the 
benefits,  but  the  word  of  God  which  is  connected  with  the 
water,  and  our  faith  confiding  in  the  word  of  God  in  this 
baptismal  water.  For  without  the  word  of  God,  the  water 
is  mere  water;  but  with  the  word  of  God,  it  is  a  baptism." 
Luther's  Catechism,  4th  part,  ques.  5th.  "  For  in  Jesus 
Christ  neither  circumcision  availeth  any  thing,  nor  uncir- 
cnmcision  ;  but  faith  which  worketh  by  love."  Gal.  v.  6. 
It  will  be  perceived  that  we  have  proceeded  thus  far  in  this 
chapter  upon  the  gratuitous  concession  that  immersion 
was  practised  by  the  apostles,  and  then  deduce  that  im- 
mersion is  not  binding  upon  the  church  in  subsequent  ages, 
since  the  circumstantial  nature  of  Christianity  is  left  to  the 
discretion  of  the  church — and  the  mode  of  baptism  is  not 
recorded  as  a  specific  exception.  But  we  do  not  even 
make  this  concession — and  go  one  step  farther. 

Fourthly.  Sprinkling  as  a  mode  of  baptism  is  more  in 
accordance  with  the  substantial  nature  of  Christianity  and 
the  common  sense  of  mankind  than  immersion. 

It  was  customary  among  the  Hebrews,  Greeks,  and 
Latins,  to  wash  their  hands  in  token  of  purity.  According 
to  the  Mussulman's  creed,  the  devotee  is  pronounced  wholly 
clean  upon  washing  the  hands,  feet,  face,  and  a  part  of  the 
head.  The  principle  that  entire  purity  is  significantly 
represented  by  the  application  of  water  to  &  part  of  the  body 
only,  has  been  clearly  recognised  by  different  nations,  in 
different  ages  of  the  world — a  principle  that  is  so  rational, 
that  the  Bible  itself  has  sanctioned  it — indeed,  a  principle 
which,  it  is  probable,  all  nations  have  borrowed  from  the 
Bible,  and  so  by  the  providence  of  God  has  obtained  among 
"all  nations"  as  preparatory  to  the  easy  adoption  of  the 
mode  of  baptism  when  the  gospel  should  be  preached  in  "  all 


106  THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


the  world."  That  this  principle  i§  sanctioned  in  the  Bible, 
we  shall  now  proceed  to  show.  Among  the  ancient  Jews,  the 
elders  of  the  city,  nearest  which  a  murdered  man  was  found, 
were  required  (Deut.  xxi.  1-9)  to  (t  wash  their  hands  over 
a  slain  heifer,"  in  token  of  their  innocence,  and  the  inno- 
cence of  the  people  of  Israel :  &  partial  washing  was  all  that 
was  required.  In  token  of  the  entire  purity,  David  says, 
"  I  will  wash  my  hands  in  innocency."  Ps.  xxvi.  6.  So 
Pilate  "  took  water  and  washed  his  hands,  saying,  I  am 
innocent  of  the  blood  of  this  just  person."  Matt,  xxvii.  24. 
David  again :  "  Sprinkle  me  with  hyssop,  and  I  shall  be 
clean."  Ps.  li.  7.  And  so  Ezekiel :  "  Then  will  I  sprinkle 
clean  water  upon  you,  and  you  shall  be  clean."  Ezek.  xxxvi. 
25.  And  so  the  Jewish  and  Christian  dispensations  are 
compared :  "  The  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats  and  the  ashes 
of  a  heifer,  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the  purify- 
ing of  the  flesh."  Heb.  ix.  13.  "  Having  your  hearts  sprin- 
kled from  an  evil  conscience."  A  real  spiritual  cleansing, 
not  a  ceremonial,  is  represented  by  the  same  word :  "  Elect 
according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father,  through 
the  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  unto  obedience  and  sprin- 
kling of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ."  1  Pet.  i.  2.  Again : 
"Ye  are  come — to  Jesus  and  to  the  blood  of  sprinkling." 
Heb.  xii.  24.  Again  :  "  There  are  three  that  bear  witness 
in  earth,  the  Spirit,  the  water,  and  the  blood :  and  these 
three  agree  in  one."  1  John  v.  8.  The  operations  of  u  the 
Spirit,"  and  the  application  of  "  the  blood"  of  Christ,  are 
represented  by  "  sprinkling  j"  to  "  agree  in  one,"  therefore, 
analogy  teaches  that  "  the  water"  in  baptism  should  be  ad- 
ministered by  sprinkling.  Thus,  sprinkling  as  a  mode  of 
baptism  is  in  harmony  with  the  substantial  nature  of  Chris- 
tianity ;  that  is,  as  it  is  in  exact  harmony  with  the  scriptural 
examples  of  mode  representing  entire  purification,  ceremonial 
and  spiritual,  it  is  perfectly  in  accordance  with  Scripture. 


107 

Sprinkling,  as  a  mode  of  baptism,  is  founded  upon  a  princi- 
ple long  since  settled  by  Jehovah  himself,  that  a  partial 
washing  is  sufficient  to  represent  entire  spiritual  purification ; 
and  when  opponents  ridicule  sprinkling  as  a  mode  of  bap- 
tism, they  ridicule  a  principle  sanctioned  and  settled  by 
Divine  authority  from  the  remotest  antiauity  of  the  church, 
and  recognised  by  the  common  sense  of  mankind. 

As  there  is  then  no  definite  model  of  church  government 
prescribed  in  the  New  Testament,  so  there  is  no  specification 
of  the  mode  of  administering  the  sacraments  of  the  Christian 
church.  Positive  institutions  may  be  specifically  enjoined 
in  the  word  of  G-od,  while  the  circumstances  and  mode  of 
their  original  observance  may  not  be  enjoined  as  of  per- 
petual obligation,  and  hence  the  circumstances  and  mode  of 
their  original  observance  are  to  be  regarded  as  non-essential. 
Circumcision  was  a  positive  institution  of  the  church,  under 
the  Jewish  dispensation,  but  the  manner  of  performing  it  is 
not  specifically  detailed.  The  manner  and  circumstances  of 
the  original  observance  of  the  Lord's  supper  are  nowhere 
specifically  enjoined  in  the  Bible,  and  consequently  no  in- 
variable manner  or  mode  can  be  instituted  as  necessary  to 
its  celebration  in  the  present  day.  "As  oft  as  ye  eat/' 
&c.  gives  a  latitude  that  leaves  the  frequency  and  manner 
of  the  celebration  of  the  holy  eucharist  optional  with  the 
church.  And  hence  the  various  Christian  denominations 
differ  from  each  other  in  the  frequency  and  manner  of  the 
observance  of  the  Lord's  supper.  What  is  specified  is 
solemnly  binding,  as  for  instance,  the  recurrence  and  ob- 
servance of  the  Sabbath.  Moses  was  bound  to  make  the 
snuffers  of  pure  gold ;  to  prepare  the  holy  oil  by  mixing 
certain  specified  ingredients ;  to  make  the  priest's  robe  of 
such  a  quality,  color,  and  length ;  to  construct  the  ark, 
tabernacle,  &c.  of  such  materials,  and  of  such  a  size — for  he 
received  specific  instructions  respecting  these  things  from 


,08  THE    MODE    OP   BAPTISM. 


God  on  the  mount,  But  where  is  the  mode  or  form  of  the 
Christian  church,  in  every  particular,  and  especially  the 
manner  of  the  observance  of  its  ordinances,  clearly  pre- 
scribed in  the  Scriptures  ?  Not  in  the  Gospels,  not  in  the 
Epistles,  nor  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  nor  anywhere  else 
in  the  Bible.  The  system  of  Christianity,  we  repeat,  is 
designed  for  every  age  and  nation  of  the  world — a  system 
at  once  sublime,  tender,  tolerant,  and  impartial;  bearing 
the  infirmities  of  the  weak,  and  prescribing  no  rite,  or  mode, 
which  is  not  of  easy  and  universal  application.  Thus,  a 
little  bread  and  wine  has  been  thought  sufficient  to  show 
forth  the  design  of  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper;  and 
so  a  little  water  is  sufficient  to  show  forth  the  design  of  bap- 
tism, the  other  sacrament  of  the  Christian  church :  so  the 
design  is  accomplished,  the  sacrament  is  properly  ad- 
ministered. Bread  and  wine,  in  the  one  case,  and  water, 
in  the  other  case,  are  specified  as  the  emblems;  but  the 
manner  of  using  them  to  show  forth  the  design  of  the  sacra- 
ments is  nowhere  specified  and  enjoined  in  the  Bible.  Had 
Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles  judged  the  manner  of  observing 
the  sacraments  of  the  Christian  church  essential,  it  is  evi- 
dent then  they  would  have  stated  it  specifically ;  but  as  they 
have  not  done  so,  they  differ  materially  from  the  Baptists 
with  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  baptism.  The  Baptists  ac- 
complish the  design  of  the  Lord's  supper  by  the  use  of  a 
little  bread  and  wine — why  not  pursue  the  same  course  with 
regard  to  the  design  of  baptism  ?  In  this  sense,  immersion 
"5s  a  sin  by  excess;"  and  in  another  sense,  it  "is  a  sin  by 
defect"  As  a  washing,  it  is  admitted,  that  it  does  illustrate 
the  purifying  effects  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  but  beyond  this  it 
means  nothing  that  is  rational  or  emblematical,  since  the 
mode  of  the  Spirit's  baptism  is  without  representation. 
This  double  emblematical  sense  is  set  forth  either  by  sprin- 
kling or  pouring. 


COLLATERAL    PROOFS.  109 


CHAPTER  V. 

COLLATERAL   PROOFS. 

6.  "We  proceed,  in  the  last  place,  to  the  sixth  source  of 
information  respecting  the  mode  of  baptism — namely,  collate- 
ral proofs. 

First.  That  mode  of  baptism  is  most  proper  which  is  of 
universal  application, — since  the  Christian  dispensation,  of 
which  baptism  is  the  initiating  sacrament,  is  designed  to  be 
a  universal  blessing.  One  of  the  indispensable  characteris- 
tics of  a  sacrament  is,  that  it  be  universal  in  its  application. 
But  in  certain  cases  of  disease,  as  well  as  in  the  feebleness 
of  sickness,  and  approach  to  death,  immersion  would  not 
only  be  fatal,  but  horrible.  And  so  in  certain  latitudes  of 
the  earth,  and,  even  in  our  own  country  in  certain  seasons 
)f  the  year,  immersion  would  be  attended  with  inconve- 
niences in  the  highest  degree  imprudent  and  dangerous,  if 
not  altogether  unacceptable  in  the  sight  of  God,  utterly  des- 
titute of  spiritual  profit,  and  wholly  useless  in  a  spiritual 
sense  to  man.  And  so  in  vast  and  arid  deserts,  where  for 
many  wearisome  days  not  a  drop  of  water  can  be  found  to 
drink,  much  less  enough  for  immersion.  And  so  in  the 
cases  of  persons  imprisoned,  where  immersion  is  impractica- 
ble, as  in  the  case  of  the  Philippian  jailer.  All  this  is 
avoided  by  the  milder,  more  convenient,  and  more  appropriate 
modes  of  sprinkling  and  pouring. 

Secondly.  That  mode  is  most  proper  which  best  comports 
with  the  design  of  baptism  as  it  respects  the  state  of  the  sul- 
ject's  mind  at  the  time  of  baptism.    The  proper  reception  of 

10 


110  THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


baptism  requires  a  calm  and  unruffled  spirit,  imbued  with 
the  serene,  devotional  feelings  of  awe,  gratitude,  and  love. 
Amid  the  circumstances  of  immersion — the  trembling,  shiver- 
ing, shrinking — step  by  step  of  alarm  and  agitation,  through 
the  cold  and  deeper  waters — the  apprehension,  the  painful 
apprehension  of  sinking — the  frequent  strangling — the 
novelty  of  the  circumstances — the  gaping,  curious  crowd — 
the  fear  of  accident — all  combine  to  confuse  the  mind  of  the 
subject,  especially  if  a  female,  toiling  under  the  weight  of 
heavy  apparel,  drifting  in  the  water,  and  struggling,  under 
no  small  embarrassment,  toward  the  outstretched  arms  of 
friends  on  the  shore,  and  restored  to  composure  only  when 
shielded  by  a  friendly  mantle  hastily  thrown  over  the  almost 
fainting  person,  or  protected  in  some  shelter  at  hand,  or 
seated  in  a  closed  and  rapidly  retiring  carriage.  Amid  all 
these  distressing  circumstances,  how  is  it  possible  to  pre- 
serve that  calm,  collected,  solemn,  and  devotional  frame  of 
mind,  which  religion  demands  in  the  administration  of  her 
ordinances  and  the  reception  of  her  blessings  ?  How  solemn 
and  impressive  however  is  this  ordinance,  when  it  is  ad- 
ministered by  sprinkling  or  pouring  in  the  sanctuary,  in 
view  of  the  serious  and  worshipping  assembly  ! 

Thirdly.  Immersion,  in  the  case  of  females,  is  indelicate. 
One  of  two  things  must  be  true :  either  the  immersion  of 
females  is  indelicate,  or  our  notions  of  delicacy  are  false. 
Religion,  in  the  whole  scope  of  its  principles,  ordinances, 
institutions,  practices,  and  customs,  never  violates  true  taste, 
and  all  true  taste  is  founded  upon  the  purity  of  religion. 
Now  of  all  the  services  of  religion,  immersion  of  females — 
delicate  in  their  forms,  gentle  in  their  manners,  retiring 
in  their  dispositions,  modest  in  their  feelings,  chaste  in  their 
sentiments,  and  shrinking  with  scrupulous  care  from  the 
gaze  of  the  world — is  made  the  only  indelicate  branch  of 
ixternal  service  found  in  the  whole  arrangement  of  the  Chris- 


COLLATERAL   PROOFS.  Ill 


tian  church.  The  plunging  a  female  under  the  water  by  a 
man,  though  he  be  the  holy  minister  of  Grod,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances usually  attending  the  immersion  of  females,  I 
have  no  words  to  justify,  except  as  the  act  respects  its  re- 
ligious associations.  What  other  considerations  can  justify 
the  action  ?  Is  it  reasonable  to  suppose,  that  the  pure  re- 
ligion of  the  gospel,  the  defence  of  modest  and  delicate 
woman,  imposes  upon  her  this  most  unpleasant  duty,  with- 
out some  obvious  and  sufficient  justification?  There  is 
nothing^  like  the  immersion  of  females  that  obtains  the 
sanction  of  public  opinion,  morality,  and  refined  taste,  in 
polished  society.  Take  away  from  immersion  its  religious 
associations,  and  you  turn  away  with  confusion  from  the 
scene.  Does  religion  dispense  with  modesty  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  her  ordinances  ?  I  ask,  does  religion  impose  that 
as  binding,  from  which  the  world  retires,  and  which  it  would 
not  witness  with  any  respect,  but  for  its  religious  associations  ? 
On  what  other  ground  is  all  this  justified  ? — indeed,  on  what 
other  ground  would  woman  consent  to  go  before  a  gazing 
multitude,  to  be  plunged  in  the  water?  None  whatever. 
But  does  God  impose  that  which  nothing  else  allows  ?  Alas, 
what  scenes  sometimes  occur  at  these  "  baptizings,"  as  they 
are  called,  on  the  mill-pond  bank,  or  river  shore,  crowded 
with  gazing,  laughing,  curious  men,  rude  and  polished,  white 
and  colored,  holy  and  vile — some  pitying,  some  averting 
their  heads,  others  laughing,  others  blushing,  and  others 
rejoicing  when  the  scene  closes  without  accident  or  mis- 
fortune !  "Woman  !  subject  not  thyself  to  a  useless  service 
for  Christ,  by  compromising  the  feelings  of  delicacy  to  the 
impulses  of  a  morbid  piety.  Such  a  humiliating  tribute  is 
not  demanded  of  thee  by  the  holy  and  indulgent  Jesus. 
He  would  rather  see  thee  bathe  his  feet  with  thy  tears,  and 
wipe  them  with  the  hair  of  thy  head,  than  consign  thy  frail 
form  to  the  "liquid  grave."     No,  Jesus  will  not  be  dis- 


112  THE   MODE   OE   BAPTISM. 


pleased  if  baptism  in  the  form  of  immersion  be  declined  by 
thee. 

It  is  trnly  surprising,  that  the  mind,  in  other  things  well 
informed,  can  be  induced  to  submit  to  some  things  from 
mistaken  views  of  religious  obligation,  under  the  solemn 
impression  that  it  is  doing  God's  service.  Pardon  me, 
ladies, — formerly,  females  were  baptized  naked.  The  sub- 
ject was  led  down  into  the  water  by  those  of  her  own  sex 
to  the  proper  depth,  and  afterward  the  administrator  ap- 
proached and  immersed  her  by  gently  pushing  her  head 
forward,  and  then  retired,  leaving  her  to  her  attendants.1 

1  Lest  the  fact  should  be  denied,  that  the  primitive  Christians  received 
baptism  in  a  state  of  nakedness,  I  furnish  the  reader  with  the  following 
testimonies.  "  The  ancient  Christians,  when  they  were  baptized  by  im- 
mersion, were  all  baptized  naked,  whether  they  were  men,  women,  or 
children.  Yossius,  De  Baptism.  Disp.  1,  ch.  6,  7,  8,  has  collected  seve- 
ral proofs  of  this,  which  I  omit,  because  it  is  a  clear  case."  Wall's 
Hist.  Inf.  Bap.  vol.  ii.  p.  417.  "  This  rite  was  performed  by  three  im- 
mersions, and  the  body  was  divested  of  clothes.  In  order  to  preserve 
decency  in  the  operation,  the  baptismal  font  of  the  women  was  separated 
from  that  of  the  men,  and  they  were  as  much  as  possible  attended  by  the 
deaconesses  of  the  church."  Gregory's  Church  Hist.  London  Edition, 
1795,  vol.  i.  p.  89.  cent.  2.  "  The  primitive  Christians  baptized  naked. 
Nothing  is  easier  than  to  give  proof  of  this  by  quotations  from  the  au- 
thentic writings  of  the  men  who  administered  baptism,  and  who  certainly 
knew  in  what  way  they  themselves  performed  it.  There  is  no  ancient 
historical  fact  better  authenticated  than  this."  Robinson's  Hist,  of  Bap- 
tism. Edi.  1717,  c.  15,  p.  94.  Mr.  Robinson  is  a  Baptist  historian  of  the 
highest  reputation  among  the  Baptists.  Basnage,  "  than  whom,"  it  is 
said,  "no  man  understood  church  history  better,"  observes,  "When 
artists  threw  garments  over  pictures  of  the  baptized  they  consulted  the 
taste  of  the  spectators  more  than  the  truth  of  the  fact."  In  administer- 
ing baptism  to  the  women,  the  method  adopted  seems  to  have  been  this : 
"  They  took  great  care  to  preserve  the  modesty  of  any  woman  that  was 
to  be  baptized.  None  but  women  came  near  or  in  sight,  till  she  wa3 
undressed,  and  her  body  in  the  water :  then  the  priest  came,  and  putting 
her  head  under  water,  used  the  form  of  baptism.  Then  he  departed,  and 
the  women  took  her  out  of  the  water,  and  clothed  her  ag^in  with  white 
garments."  Wall,  vol.  ii.  p.  418. 


COLLATERAL   PROOFS.  113 


Thr  preservation  of  modesty  was  impossible.  Yet  this  was 
primitive  usage,  and  it  greatly  embarrasses  the  Baptists. 
They  foresee  the  difficulty,  and  compromise  the  obligation 
to  adhere  strictly  to  the  ancient  practice,  by  saying,  "the 
primitive  Christians  baptized  naked  ;  we  baptize  clothed. " 

As  this  immersion  of  females  is  unquestionably  indeli- 
cate, the  inference  is  a  strong  one  that  it  is  not  indispensa- 
ble to  the  baptism  of  the  other  sex,  since,  under  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation,  which  is  universal  in  the  distribution  of 
its  blessings,  its  initiating  sacrament  must  be  universal  in  its 
application.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed,  that  Christ  would 
enjoin  an  initiating  sacrament  of  the  Christian  dispensation 
which  is  not  equally  applicable  to  every  age,  sex,  and  con- 
dition of  believers,  and  in  every  case  perfectly  consistent 
with  modesty,  purity  of  taste,  and  the  holiest  emotions. 
"  Finally,  brethren,  whatsoever  things  are  true,  whatsoever 
things  are  honest,  whatsoever  things  are  just,  whatsoever 
things  are  pure,  whatsoever  things  are  lovely,  whatsoever 
things  are  of  good  report,  if  there  be  any  praise,  think  on 
these  things."  2 

Fourthly.  The  difficulty  in  certain  cases  of  baptism  stated 
in  the  Scriptures,  upon  the  supposition  that  immersion  was 

"No  exception  was  allowed  in  any  case,  even  when  the  most  timid 
and  delicate  female  importunately  desired  it.  This  fact  is  established,  not 
only  by  the  most  direct  and  unequivocal  statements,  and  that  by  a  num- 
ber of  writers,  but  also  by  the  narration  of  a  number  of  curious  particu- 
lars connected  with  this  practice."  Dr.  Miller.  "  It  is  notorious  and 
admits  of  no  contradiction,  that  baptism  of  those  days  of  immersion  was 
administered  to  men,  women,  and  children,  in  puris  naturalibus,  naked 
as  Adam  and  Eve  before  the  fall,"  &c.  &c.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  testifies 
the  same  thing:  "  As  soon  as  ye  came  into  the  baptistery,  ye  put  off  your 
clothes,  *  *  *  and  being  thus  divested,  ye  stood  imitating  Christ,  wh* 
was  naked  upon  the  cross.  *  *  *  A  wonderful  thing !  ye  were  naked  in 
the  sight  of  men,  and  were  not  ashamed,"  &c.  Dr.  Stuart,  Bib.  Rep., 
No.  18,  p.  380. 

2  Philip,  iv.  8. 

10- 


114  THE   MODE   OP   BAPTISM. 


the  mode  adopted,  is  avoided  upon  the  presumption  that 
sprinkling  or  pouring  was  practised  in  those  cases.  That 
mode  is  the  most  proper  which  most  easily  removes  the  dim 
culties  connected  with  many  cases  of  baptism  mentioned  in 
the  Scriptures.  We  shall  consider  the  prominent  instances 
of  this  character. 

(1.)  The  baptism  of  the  three  thousand  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost. 

First,  we  want  time  for  the  baptism  of  so  large  a  number 
by  immersion.  Peter  commenced  his  sermon  "the  third 
hour  in  the  day,"  that  is,  9  o'clock  in  the  morning,  the  Jew- 
ish hour  of  morn  ing  prayer,  and  must  have  preached  at  least 
one  hour,  for  in  addition  to  what  is  recorded  of  his  sermon, 
it  is  stated,  that  "  he  exhorted  and  testified  with  many  other 
words."  The  awakened  thousands  are  next  to  be  instructed, 
the  confessions  of  the  converted  are  to  be  received  and 
examined,  and  three  thousand  are  selected  from  the  multi- 
tude. Arrangements  are  now  to  be  made  for  their  baptism, 
or  formal  initiation  into  the  Christian  church )  and  as  they 
had  left  home  without  the  most  distant  idea  of  being  con- 
verted and  baptized,  they  were  utterly  unprepared  for  the 
ordinance,  upon  the  supposition  that  it  was  administered  by 
immersion,  and  so  much  delay  must  be  had  before  the  proper 
raiment  can  be  obtained — unless  we  suppose  they  were  bap- 
tized without  clothing  altogether,  or  that  they  remained  on 
the  ground  during  the  public  exercises,  or  returned  home 
soaked  and  dripping  in  their  wet  clothes.  And  then  apart- 
ments adjacent  to  the  place  of  baptism  are  to  be  provided 
respectively  for  the  men  and  women.  To  these  considera- 
tions may  be  added  the  great  deal  of  delay  and  inconvenience 
occasioned  in  the  baptism  of  the  females,  especially  as  they 
had  not  come  prepared  with  suitable  apparel  for  a  speedy 
administration.  Before  all  these  preparations  for  the  cere- 
mony could  be  made,  four  hours  at  least  must  elapse,  and  it 


COLLATERAL   PROOFS.  115 


is  1  o'clock  before  a  single  person  is  baptized.  Now  the 
Jewish  day  closed  at  6  P.M.,  and  the  three  thousand  were 
haptized  "  the  same  day."  Here  then  we  have  five  hours, 
that  is,  three  hundred  minutes,  in  which  twelve  apostles  are 
to  baptize  three  thousand  persons,  or  one  hundred  every  ten 
minutes,  or  fifty  every  five  minutes,  which  allows  one  minute 
and  twelve  seconds  for  each  baptism,  and  all  this  is  to  be 
done  without  the  loss  of  a  second.  It  was  absolutely  im- 
possible. In  the  present  day,  it  requires  at  least  four 
minutes  to  dispose  of  a  case  of  immersion  with  decency;  and 
upon  this  basis,  the  twelve  apostles  would  have  required  one 
thousand  minutes,  or  sixteen  hours  and  four  minutes,  to  im- 
merse three  thousand  persons ;  and  all  this  is  to  be  done 
without  the  loss  of  a  second  -,  and  to  have  done  this  must 
have  required  them  to  stand  in  the  water  during  the  re- 
mainder of  the  day,  and  the  subsequent  night,  till  four  mi- 
nutes after  5  o'clock  in  the  morning  of  the  next  day :  and  yet 
they  had  but  five  hours  for  the  work,  and  all  this  was  done 
"  the  same  day."  We  repeat,  it  was  absolutely  impossible. 
Besides,  the  apostles  had  not  physical  strength  adequate  to 
immerse  so  large  a  number  in  so  short  a  time.  The  time  is 
so  limited  that  they  have  not  a  moment  to  rest  and  take 
breath.  "  A  gentleman  of  veracity  told  the  writer  that  he 
was  once  present  when  forty-seven  were  dipped  in  one  day, 
in  the  usual  way.  The  first  operator  began,  and  went 
through  the  ceremony,  until  he  had  dipped  twenty-five  per- 
sons ;  when  he  was  so  fatigued  that  he  was  compelled  to 
give  it  up  to  the  other,  who  with  great  apparent  difficulty 
dipped  the  other  twenty-two.  Both  appeared  completely 
exhausted,  and  went  off  the  ground,  into  a  house  hard  by, 
to  change  their  clothes  and  refresh  themselves."  Scripture 
Directory  for  Baptism  by  a  Layman,  14.  "  We  have  just 
seen  an  article  in  the  Philadelphia  North  American,  con- 
taining an  account  of  the  recent  revival  in  Cincinnati,  in 


116  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


which.  we  find  the  following  remarks  :  "  A  gentleman  in- 
forms us  he  saw  eighty-five  adults  receive  at  one  time  the 
ordinance  of  baptism,  when  the  officiating  clergyman  teas 
obliged  to  desist  through  exhaustion,  although  a  large  number 
of  other  candidates  were  in  attendance."  Kurtz  on  Inf. 
Baptism,  pp.  227,  228.  If  in  the  present  day,  with  all  its 
facilities  and  improvements  for  immersing,  three  men  could 
not  immerse  one  hundred  and  thirty-two  without  exhaustion, 
how  was  it  possible  for  one  apostle  to  immerse  two  hundred 
and  fifty  in  five  hours?  The  apostles  were  but  men,  and 
to  suppose  that  they  could  immerse  three  thousand  persons 
in  five  hours,  is  to  invest  them  with  supernatural  physical 
energy — a  supposition  extravagant  in  the  extreme.  Indeed, 
the  Baptists  concede  all  this  indirectly  in  their  strenuous 
effort  to  prove  that  the  "  seventy  disciples"  assisted  on  this 
occasion.  But  the  proof  is  all  against  them  on  this  point 
also.  In  Luke  x.  we  have  an  account  of  the  call  and  com- 
mission of  the  "  seventy,"  but  no  evidence  that  they  were 
invested  with  authority  to  baptize;  indeed,  Christian  bap- 
tism was  not  at  this  time  introduced,  and  when  it  was  origin- 
ally introduced  by  Christ  after  his  resurrection,  authority 
to  administer  it  was  vested  in  the  apostles  only,  by  them  to 
be  transmitted  to  men  whom  they  judged  worthy  to  take  the 
office  of  the  ministry.  "  Lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man," 
was  an  apostolic  injunction  with  reference  to  ordination. 
Now  only  ten  days  intervened  between  the  commission  of 
the  apostles  and  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  Christ  himself 
commanded  them  to  suspend  the  exercise  of  all  apostolic 
prerogative  till  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Grhost  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  "  Behold,  I  send  the  promise  of  my  Father  upon 
you  :  but  tarry  ye  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  until  ye  be  en- 
dued with  power  from  on  high."  Luke  xxiv.  49.  u  And 
Christ  being  assembled  together  with  them,  commanded 
them  that  they  should  not  depart  from  Jerusalem,  but  wait 


COLLATERAL   PROOFS.  117 


for  the  promise  of  the  Father — and  ye  shall  receive  power, 
after  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  come  upon  you."  Acts  i.  4,  8. 
This  power  they  received  on  the  clay  of  Pentecost :  "  There- 
fore being  by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted,  and  having 
received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he 
hath  shed  forth  this  tchich  ye  now  see  and  hear."  Acts  ii. 
33.  Now  they  were  to  go  forth,  "and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name,  &c. — beginning  at  Jerusalem." 
Matt,  xxviii.  19.  Luke  xxiv.  47.  Before  this  time,  viz. 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  the  apostles  themselves  had  not  received 
authority  to  open  the  Christian  dispensation,  and  administer 
baptism,  its  initiating  ordinance,  and  they  received  this 
authority  themselves  by  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost: 
"  Ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days 
hence."  Acts  i.  5.  Now  as  the  apostles  themselves  had  not 
authority  to  administer  Christian  baptism  before  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  they  certainly  could  not  at  this  time  confer  this 
authority  upon  any  one  else,  and  we  have  no  evidence  that 
the  apostles  ordained  any  one  to  the  work  of  the  ministry 
during  the  ten  days  that  intervened  between  their  commis- 
sion and  the  day  of  Pentecost.  Matthias,  it  is  true,  was 
"  numbered  with  the  eleven  apostles/'  but  he  icas  selected 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  "  that  he  might  take  part  of  this  ministry 
and  apostleship,  from  which  Judas  by  transgression  fell." 
Acts  i.  25.  Matthias  only  then  was  added  to  "  the  eleven" 
to  do  the  work  of  "  teaching"  and  "  baptizing"  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost.  We  have  not  one  word  of  evidence  that  "  the 
seventy"  were  ordained  by  the  apostles  to  this  work  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost ;  and  not  having  been  ordained  to  this  work 
before  the  day  of  Pentecost,  they  could  not  assist  the  apostles 
in  baptizing  the  "  three  thousand."  The  supposition  there- 
fore that  they  did  assist  the  apostles  in  this  work,  is  unrea- 
sonable and  untenable. 

Secondly,  we  want  a  suitable  place  for  the  immersion  of 


118  THE   MODE   OP   BAPTISM. 


so  large  a  number.  Neither  at  the  temple,  nor  in  any  part 
of  Jerusalem,  was  there  a  suitable  place.  The  pool  of 
Bethesda,  which  lay  but  a  little  to  the  north-east  of  the 
temple,  and  was  used  for  cleansing  the  temple,  the  sacrifices, 
&c,  and  into  which  all  the  blood  and  offals  and  filth  from 
the  temple  and  sacrifices  were  washed,  was  unsuitable  for 
immersing.  Indeed,  had  it  been  a  suitable  place,  it  con- 
tained at  this  season  of  the  year,  when  no  rain  fell,  too  little 
water  for  the  immersion  of  three  thousand  persons  in  the  five 
hours.  Besides,  had  it  been  a  suitable  place,  and  had  it 
contained  water  enough  for  the  demand,  the  use  of  it  could 
not  have  been  obtained  for  the  purpose  of  administering 
Christian  baptism,  for  it  was  in  the  possession  of  the  Jewish 
priests,  the  undisguised  and  mortal  enemies  of  Christ,  and 
who  never  could  have  been  prevailed  upon  to  surrender  it 
to  what  they  would  have  considered  a  most  sacrilegious  per- 
version from  its  original  use.  Moreover,  had  it  been  a  suita- 
ble place,  and  had  it  contained  an  adequate  amount  of  water 
for  the  demand,  it  is  not  presumable  that  the  use  of  it  could 
have  been  obtained  by  the  apostles  at  this  time,  for  the 
"  evening  sacrifice"  came  on  between  three  and  four  o'clock 
in  the  afternoon,  when  the  priests  would  have  a  sacred  use 
for  the  pool  themselves — the  very  time  occupied  by  the 
apostles  in  baptizing.  When,  therefore,  we  take  into  con- 
sideration the  nature  of  Bethesda,  the  season  of  the  year, 
the  prejudice  of  the  priests,  and  the  time  of  the  day, 
Bethesda  must  be  excluded  as  the  place  in  which  the  three 
thousand  were  immersed,  if  they  were  immersed  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost. 

The  brook  Kedron,  or  Cedron,  flowed  along  the  east  side 
of  the  city,  and  was  a  turbid,  unimportant  stream,  and 
always  dry  "except  in  winter."  Jahn,  §  19,  p.  20.  The 
winter  in  Palestine  is  over  toward  the  close  of  February. 
But  the  three  thousand  were  baptized  in  May  or  the  be- 


COLLATERAL    PROOFS  119 


ginning  of  June ;  and  hence  they  could  not  have  been 
baptized  in  Kedron,  unless  they  were  baptized  as  the  Israel- 
ites were  in  the  Red  Sea — on  "  dry  land."  It  was  but  a 
brook,  not  a  large  and  noble  river,  and  according  to  the  best 
authority,  "it  is  dry  at  least  nine  months  in  the  year." 
Watson. 

The  only  remaining  water  in  or  about  Jerusalem,  which 
the  Baptists  might  suppose  to  have  answered  for  the  pur- 
pose of  immersion,  was  the  pool  of  Siloam,  or  Shiloah. 
This  was  rather  a  fountain  that  flowed  at  the  base  of  Mount 
Moriah,  between  the  city  and  the  brook  Kedron ;  and  it  is 
easy  to  see  that  a  mere  fountain  is  not  adequate  for  the  im- 
mersion of  three  thousand  in  five  hours.  Besides,  this  pool 
or  fountain  was  three-fourths  of  a  mile  from  where  the 
apostles  were  teaching,  and  the  people  were  assembled ;  and 
we  have  no  evidence  that  the  apostles  and  the  multitude 
marched  off  to  this  fountain  for  the  purpose  of  immersion. 
The  "  lavers  in  the  temple"  and  "  bathing-places  in  private 
houses"  in  the  city,  it  has  been  contended,  might  have  been 
used  by  the  apostles  on  this  occasion.  Nothing  can  be  con- 
ceived of  more  improbable  than  this.  The  concerted  and  ma- 
lignant opposition  of  the  priests  would  have  baffled  the 
apostles  in  the  direction  to  the  temple ;  besides,  the  priests 
themselves  had  a  sacred  use  for  the  lavers  at  the  very  time 
the  apostles  were  baptizing.  Moreover,  the  lavers,  had  they 
Veen  surrendered,  were  insufficient  in  number  and  size  for 
the  immersion  of  three  thousand  in  five  hours.  And  as  to 
the  "  baths  in  private  houses" — these  were  confined  to  the 
rich  and  honorable,  few  of  whom  were  as  yet  friendly  to 
the  cause  of  Christ :  and  had  they  been  tendered,  it  is  in- 
conceivable how  baths  enough  could  have  been  hunted  up, 
and  three  thousand  persons  distributed  and  baptized  in 
various  parts  of  the  city,  by  twelve  persons,  in  five  hours. 
And  as  to  the  river  Jordan,  it  was  sixteen  or  eighteen  miles 


120  THE   MOLK   OF   BAPTISM. 


distant  from  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  where  all  these  persons 
were  converted,  and  Jordan  is  out  of  the  question  this  time 
at  least. 

Thirdly,  there  is  not  one  frxt  stated  in  the  sacred  history 
of  this  solemn  occasion,  that  famishes  the  remotest  inference 
that  the  three  thousand  were  immersed ;  and  therefore  we 
may  conclude  that  they  were  not  immersed.  Had  the 
apostles  laid  the  singular  stress  on  the  mode  of  baptism  with 
which  the  Baptists  invest  it,  they  would  certainly  have 
specified  it  just  as  clearly  as  they  have  the  great  and  im- 
portant events  of  this  occasion — especially  as  it  was  the 
opening  of  the  Christian  dispensation.  But  not  one  word 
on  the  subject  of  mode. 

From  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  we  see  immersion 
necessarily  excluded,  because  it  was  absolutely  impracticable. 
The  only  practicable  mode  was  affusion,  that  is,  sprinkling 
or  pouring,  and  this,  agreeably  to  a  well-known  Jewish  cus- 
tom, could  have  been  done  in  a  very  short  time  by  the 
apostles,  with  bunches  of  hyssop,  as  they  passed  through  the 
multitude,  and  repeated  the  prescribed  form  of  Christian 
baptism.  All  the  difficulties  above  vanish  upon  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  three  thousand  were  baptized  by  sprinkling 
or  pouring,  and  therefore  the  inference  is  strongly  in  favor 
of  these  modes  as  the  apostolic  practice. 

(2.)  The  multitudes  baptized  by  John.  The  whole  period 
of  his  ministry  did  not  exceed  ten  months.  Deduct  from 
this  period  the  time  employed  in  preaching  preparatory  to  bap- 
tizing each  day ;  the  time  required  in  removing  from  place  to 
place;  occasional  foul  weather;  forty-three  Sabbaths,  during 
which  the  Jews  considered  it  unlawful  to  baptize, — and  we 
shall  have  remaining  for  the  exercise  of  John's  ministry,  in 
all,  upon  a  fair  calculation,  two  hundred  and  twenty-seven 
days.  ^u>w  from  calculations  made,  "John  baptized  in  all 
about  three  million  persons.     The  whole  time  engaged  in 


COLLATERAL    PROOFS.  121 


baptizing,  as  it  is  supposed,  did  not  exceed  one  thousand  three 
hundred  and  sixty-two  hours.  Therefore  John  must  have 
baptized,  in  one  hour,  two  thousand  two  hundred  and  two  ; 
in  one  minute,  thirty-six,  or  a  little  over  one  in  every  two 
seconds.  And  he  must  have  pursued  these  labors  in  the 
same  rapid  ratio  during  six  hours  per  day,  for  the  space  of 
two  hundred  and  twenty-seven  days."3  What  physical 
strength  would  have  been  adequate  to  such  labor  for  such 
a  length  of  time  ?  The  practicability  of  baptizing  by  im- 
mersion, the  "  prodigious  multitudes  that  flocked  to  John" 
for  baptism,  appeared  to  Robert  Hall  a  great  difficulty,  which 
he  could  only  remove  by  supposing,  without  a  particle  of 
Scripture  testimony,  that  John  was  assisted  by  coadjutors. 
"It  is  by  no  means  certain,  however,"  says  he,  "that  John 
was  the  only  person  who  performed  the  ceremony ;  indeed, 
when  we  consider  the  prodigious  multitudes,  it  seems  scarcely 
practicable ;  he  most  probably  employed  coadjutors,"  &c.4 
Mr.  Hall  certainly  knew  that  John  did  not  abolish  Jewish 
rites,  and  from  his  knowledge  of  Jewish  rites,  he  might  have 
found  out  a  much  easier  mode  of  removing  the  difficulty, 
without  the  necessity  of  such  assistance.  "We  will  direct  the 
reader's  attention  to  a  Jewish  rite,  by  which  John,  in  so 
short  a  time,  could  have  baptized  three  million  persons  by 
sprinkling  or  pouring.  The  task  is  easy.  The  reader  must 
bear  in  mind  that  John  was  invested  with  no  authority  to 
abolish  Jewish  rites,  and  hence  he  adopted  a  Jewish  custom 
on  this  occasion.  u  The  Jews  had  a  mode  of  purifying  the 
people  by  dipping  a  bunch  of  hyssop  into  water,  and  sprin- 
kling it  on  the  people.  So  it  is  said  of  Moses,  '  When  he 
had  spoken  every  precept  to  the  people  according  to  the  law, 
he  took  the  blood  of  calves  and  goats,  with  water  and  scarlet 
wool,  and  hyssop,  and  sprinkled  both  the  book  and  all  the 


3  Hibbard  on  Baptism— Mode,  p.  23.  4  Hall's  Works,  vol  i.  361. 

11 


122  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 


people.' 5  Now,  it  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  the  people,  at 
this  time,  numbered  six  hundred  thousand  warriors,  which, 
reckoning  five  of  the  common  people  to  one  warrior,  leaves 
a  round  number  of  three  millions  of  persons.  These  Moses 
sprinkled.  The  occasion  was  the  most  sublime  and  imposing 
recorded  in  the  Old  Testament.  But  if  Moses  dedicated  the 
people  to  God  by  sprinkling,  and  if  such  forms  of  consecra- 
tion were  familiar  to  the  Jews,  and  if  John  adopted  a  Jew- 
ish rite  for  the  purpose  of  his  ministry,  then,  evidently,  we 
may  suppose  he  sprinkled  the  people  with  a  hyssop  branch 
dipped  in  the  water/* 6  Mr.  Wesley  is  of  the  same  opinion. 
"  It  seems  that  they  stood  in  ranks  on  the  edge  of  the  river, 
and  John,  passing  along  before  them,  cast  water  on  their 
heads  or  faces,  by  which  means  he  might  baptize  many  thou- 
sands in  a  day.'"7  On  this  ground,  therefore,  we  conclude 
that  the  immense  multitudes  who  were  baptized  by  John, 
might  receive  the  ordinance  with  comparatively  little  labor 
and  trouble ;  indeed,  on  this  ground  only,  in  so  short  a  time, 
could  one  man  initiate  three  million  of  Jews  under  the  new 
dispensation. 

(3.)  The  third  case  is  that  of  the  jailer. 

First.  We  want  time,  upon  the  supposition  that  he  was 
immersed.  The  earthquake  came  at  midnight — and  alarmed, 
awakened,  and  converted,  the  jailer  is  baptized  "straight- 
way," that  is,  "in  the  same  hour  of  the  night."'  (Ver.  33.) 
Preliminary  to  his  baptism,  a  short  time  is  employed  in  in- 
structing him,  "  for  they  spake  unto  him  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house"' — oixia.  (Ver.  32.) 
u  And  he  took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night  and  washed 
their  stripes,"  (ver.  33,) — some  time  was  required  for  this. 
Upon  being  roused  from  sleep,  and  examining  the  prison 


5  Heb.  ix.  19.  6  Hibbard  on  Baptism— Mode,  pp.  25,  26. 

7  Xotes,  Matt.  iii.  6. 


COLLATERAL    PROOFS.  123 


doors,  and  "  seeing  them  open/'  and  "  calling  for  a  light," 
and  "  bringing  out  Paul  and  Silas"  from  the  "  inner  prison," 
he  must  have  consumed  more  time.  And  after  all  this, 
what  portion  of  the  "  hour"  had  the  apostles  to  go  out  with 
the  jailer,  and  his  whole  family,  in  search  of  a  river,  or 
brook,  or  pond,  or  any  place  suitable  for  immersion  ? 

But,  secondly,  admitting  that  there  was  time  enough  for 
immersion,  is  it  probable  that  the  jailer  would  have  gone  out 
of  the  prison,  leaving  "all  the  doors  opened,  and  every  one's 
bands  loosed,"  (ver.  26,)  so  that  all  the  prisoners  might 
attempt  to  escape  under  cover  of  the  night  ?  Such  a  suppo- 
sition is  not  consistent  with  the  prudence  and  integrity  of 
the  new  convert. 

Or,  thirdly,  is  it  probable  that  the  jailer  and  his  family, 
upon  leaving  the  prison  with  the  apostles,  could  hope  to 
elude  the  guard  that  surrounded  the  building,  now  excited 
to  the  utmost  vigilance  by  the  earthquake  ? 

Or,  fourthly,  is  it  probable  that  Paul  and  Silas  would 
have  connived  at  a  violation  of  duty  on  the  part  of  the  jailer, 
and  thus  exposed  him  to  death,  the  penalty  of  the  violation  ? 
According  to  the  Roman  law  the  jailer  would  have  forfeited 
his  life  had  he  taken  the  prisoners  out  of  the  prison.  And 
thus,  when  he  supposed  the  prisoners  gone,  he  drew  his 
sword,  and  was  about  to  kill  himself,  when  Paul,  acquainted 
with  the  Roman  law,  exclaimed,  "  Do  thyself  no  harm,  for 
we  are  all  here." 

Or,  fifthly,  is  it  probable  that  Paul  and  Silas  would  have 
connived  at  the  violation  of  the  plain  principles  of  the  gospel 
in  reference  to  such  cases,  and  which  Paul  himself  has  stated 
so  clearly  ?  "  Let  every  soul  be  subject  unto  the  higher 
powers ;  for  there  is  no  power  but  of  God ;  the  powers  that 
be  are  ordained  of  God.  Whosoever,  therefore,  resisteth  the 
power,  resisteth  the  ordinance  of  God ;  and  they  that  resist 


124  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 


shall  receive  to  themselves  damnation." 8  u  Put  them  in 
mind  to  he  subject  to  principalities,  and  powers,  to  obey 
magistrates,"  &c.9 

Or,  sixthly,  is  it  probable  that  Paul  and  Silas  would  have 
been  accomplices  in  the  violation  of  the  laws  of  God  and 
man? 

Or,  seventhly,  is  it  probable  that  Paul  and  Silas  stole  out 
clandestinely  at  midnight,  when  the  next  day  they  refused 
to  depart  "  privily  V  "Would  it  have  been  consistent  with 
the  character  of  the  noble  and  upright  Paul,  to  have  left  the 
prison  at  midnight,  in  a  dishonorable  manner,  and  the  next 
day  demand  as  his  right  that  he  be  dismissed  in  an  honor- 
able manner  ?  Would  such  insincerity  have  been  in  character 
with  the  dignity  and  purity  of  an  apostle  ? 

Or,  eighthly,  regarding  all  the  circumstances  as  unfavor- 
able to  immersion  out  the  jail,  is  it  probable  that  the  jailer 
and  all  his  family  were  immersed  in  the  jail  ?  Is  it  probable, 
that  among  the  wretched  accommodations  of  a  Roman  jail, 
there  were  large  pools,  or  convenient  bathing  vessels,  which 
might  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  immersion  ?  And  as  to  "a 
private  bath  in  the  jail" — the  old  and  convenient  hypothe- 
sis— Philippi  was  in  latitude  41°  north — "  a  climate  in  which 
baths  are  little  used,"  except  by  persons  in  the  "  possession 
of  the  luxuries  of  wealth."  That  there  was  a  private  bath 
in  the  jail  is  altogether  hypothetical — that  one  was  in  the 
possession  of  the  jailer  is  wholly  improbable.  And  add  to 
all  these  the  improbability  that  the  jailer  and  all  his  family, 
roused  suddenly  from  sleep,  were,  either  in  or  out  of  the  jail, 
immersed  at  midnight,  specially  the  females,  if  there  were 
any,  greatly  to  the  inconvenience  of  all  the  parties  concerned, 
the  detriment  of  their  health,  an  offence  to  modesty,  and  a 
work  of  hurry  and  confusion  inconsistent  with  the  solemn 


8  Rom.  xiii.  1.  2.  9  Titus  iiL  1. 


COLLATERAL    PROOFS.  125 


administration  of  the  ordinances  of  Christianity — and  im- 
mersion in  the  case  of  the  jailer  and  his  family,  is  totally 
out  of  the  question.  But  all  these  difficulties  in  the  way  of 
his  baptism  will  vanish  if  we  admit  that  it  was  done  by 
sprinkling  or  pouring,  which  might  have  been  done  with  a 
part  of  the  water  with  which  he  "  washed  their  stripes/'  for 
in  the  very  hour  he  washed  their  stripes,  he  was  baptized  : 
'•And  he  took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and  washed 
their  stripes,  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his,  straightway" 
— immediately — on  the  spot.  (Yer.  33.)  The  conclusion  is  in- 
evitable, that  the  jailer  and  his  family  were  not  only  bap- 
tized within  the  prison,  but  that  the  mode  of  baptism  adopted 
by  the  apostles  was  either  sprinkling  or  pouring.10 

(4.)  The  next  case  we  shall  notice  is  the  baptism  of  Cor- 
nelius and  his  friends.  In  this  case  there  is  no  specific 
reference  made  to  any  mode  of  baptism,  and  immersion  is 
wholly  out  of  the  question. 

First.  The  sole  design  in  recording  this  case  is  to  show 
the  progress  of  Christianity  among  the  Gentiles.  Cornelius 
and  his  friends  were  Gentiles,  and  first  converted  to  Grod, 
under  the  preaching  of  Peter,  and  thus  having  become  mem- 
bers of  Christ's  mystical  body,  they  were  entitled  to  formal 
initiation  into  the  Christian  church.  Hence,  Peter  inquires, 
"  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these  should  not  be  bap- 
tized, which  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  icell  as  we?" 

10  Dr.  A.  Clark  observes  respecting  the  baptism  of  the  jailer  :  "And  by 
the  way,  if  he  and  all  his  were  baptized  straightway,  immediately,  in- 
stantly, at  that  very  time,  dum  ipsa  res  agitur,  it  is  by  no  means  likely 
that  there  was  any  immersion  in  the  case;  indeed,  all  the  circumstances 
of  the  case,  the  dead  of  the  night,  the  general  agitation,  the  necessity  of 
despatch,  and  the  words  of  the  text,  all  disprove  it.  The  apostles,  there- 
fore, had  another  method  of  administering  baptism  besides  immersion, 
which,  if  practised  according  to  the  Jewish  formalities,  must  have  re- 
quired considerable  time,  and  not  a  little  publicity."  Commentary,  note, 
Acts  xvi.  32. 

11* 


126  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


Acts  x.  47.  That  is,  Christ  the  founder  of  the  Christian 
church,  has  instituted  water  baptism  as  the  sensible  formal 
initiatory  rite  into  the  Christian  church  :  these  Gentiles 
have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we  Jews  have : 
they  have  therefore  as  good  a  right  to  association  with  the 
Christian  church  as  we  Jews  have  :  can  any  man  therefore, 
whether  Jew  or  Gentile,  forbid  that  they  should  be  baptized, 
or  deny  them  the  right  to  enjoy,  with  us  Jews,  the  privileges 
of  the  Christian  church,  since  they  give  the  most  satisfactory 
proof  that  they  are  the  subjects  of  regenerating  grace,  and 
are  recognised  by  God  himself  as  already  associated  with  us 
in  the  spiritual  church  of  Christ?  for  "  while  Peter  yet 
spake,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them  which  heard  the 
word/'  (ver.  44,)  and  "they  heard  them  speak  with  tongues, 
and  magnify  God."  (Yer.  46.)  At  this  the  Jews  were 
astonished,  for  it  was  a  maxim  with  the  Jews  that  the 
shechinah,  or  Divine  Spirit,  could  not  be  communicated  to 
the  Gentiles :  "  and  they  of  the  circumcision  (Jews)  which 
believed,  were  astonished,  as  many  as  came  with  Peter, 
because  that  on  the  Gentiles  also  was  poured  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  (Yer.  45.)  "  Then  answered  Peter,  can  any 
man  forbid  water,  that  these  should  not  be  baptized" — should 
not  be  formally  initiated  into  the  Christian  church, — "  who 
have  received  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  well  as  we  ?" — who  have  as 
good  a  title  to  baptism  as  toe  have  ?  "  And  he  commanded 
them  to  be  baptized" — to  be  formally  and  sacramentally 
recognised  as  members  of  the  Christian  church.  (Yer.  48.) 
That  this  is  the  proper  interpretation  of  this  case  is  evident 
from  the  subsequent  chapter,  which  begins :  a  And  the 
apostles  and  brethren  that  were  in  Judea  heard  that  the 
Gentiles  had  also  received  the  word  of  God.  And  when 
Peter  was  come  up  to  Jerusalem,  they  that  were  of  the  cir- 
cumcision (Jews)  contended  with  him}  saying,  Thou  wentest 
in  to  men  uncircumcised,"  kc.  (xi.  1-3.)     Peter  then  goes 


COLLATERAL   PROOFS.  127 


into  a  a^ence  of  the  whole  proceeding,  and  thus  concludes : 
u  Forasmuch  then  as  God  gave  them  the  like  gift  as  he  did 
unto  ns,  v:ho  believed  on  the  Lord  Jesus  ;  what  was  I,  that  I 
could  icithstand  God?  When  they  heard  these  things, 
they  held  their  peace,  and  glorified  God,  saying,  Then  hath 
God,  ALSO  TO  THE  Gentiles,  granted  repentance  unto  life." 
(Ver.  17, 18.)  Peter  then  did  right  in  baptizing  the  Gentile 
believers,  because  the  gospel  extended  to  the  Gentiles  as 
well  as  Jews.  This  is  the  great  doctrine  taught  in  the  bap- 
tism of  Cornelius  and  his  friends,  and  this  is  the  sole  design 
contemplated  in  recording  their  baptism. 

Secondly.  As  to  the  mode  of  baptism  in  this  case,  there 
is  nut  the  remotest  allusion  to  immersion.  No  preparations 
are  made  to  leave  the  spot — no  proposition  is  made  to  do  so 
— no  preparations  are  made  for  immersion  on  the  spot — no 
public  pool,  or  pond,  or  fountain,  or  river,  or  private  bath,  is 
referred  to — no  "  watery  grave"  is  mentioned — no  reference 
is  made  even  to  water,  except  to  the  possibility  that  some 
might  "  forbid"  the  use  of  it  in  Christian  baptism; — and  con- 
sequently, in  the  absence  of  all  the  circumstances  favorable 
to  immersion,  we  cannot  infer  that  immersion  was  practised 
on  this  occasion. 

Thirdly.  The  force  of  inference  is  opposed  to  immersion. 
Peter  was  now  in  the  house  of  Cornelius.  "  Cornelius  the 
centurion,  a  just  man,  and  one  that  feareth  God,  and  of  good 
report  among  all  the  nation  of  the  Jews,  was  warned  from 
God  by  a  holy  angel,  to  send  for  thee  into  his  house"  &c." 
"And  as  Peter  was  coming  in,  Cornelius  met  him,"  &c. 
(x.  25.)  "  And  as  he  talked  with  him,  he  went  in,"  &c. 
(Ver.  27.)  In  the  house,  then,  Peter  preached;  and,  in  the 
house,  as  he  preached,  Cornelius  and  his  friends  were  con- 
verted; and  u  then"  in  the  house,  at  the  time,  "he  corn- 


Acts  x.  22. 


128  THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM: 


manded  them  to  be  baptized/'  and  the  inference  is,  that  they 
were  baptized  on  the  spot,  by  sprinkling  or  pouring.  All 
the  known  circumstances  at  least  are  in  favor  of  these  modes 
of  baptism,  while  they  present  singular  difficulties  to  the 
theory  of  exclusive  immersion. 

Fourthly.  If  the  phrase,  "  can  any  man  forbid  water,  that 
these  should  not  be  baptized,"  implies  that  immersion  was 
intended,  then  it  proves  too  much  for  the  Baptists ;  for  they 
assume  that  immersion  was  universally  enjoined  and  practised 
by  the  apostles.  Why  then  was  it  supposed  by  Peter  that 
"  any"  would  object  to  immersion  on  this  occasion  ?  But 
"  the  apostles  and  brethren  in  Judea,"  as  we  have  seen,  did, 
at  first,  object  to  the  baptism  of  Cornelius  and  his  friends — 
therefore,  on  the  hypothesis  of  the  Baptists,  "  the  apostles" 
themselves  objected  to  immersion  as  the  mode  of  baptism  in 
the  case  before  us  ! — a  conclusion  which  the  Baptists  cannot 
escape,  unless  they  adopt  the  interpretation  we  have  given 
above;  and  if  they  adopt  that — and  they  cannot  reject  it 
consistently  with  a  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Bible — they 
relinquish  all  hope  to  support  immersion  from  the  baptism 
of  Cornelius  and  his  friends. 

(5.)  The  next  instance  we  shall  notice  is  that  of  Saul  of 
Tarsus.  As  in  the  case  of  Cornelius  and  his  friends,  there 
is  not  a  single  circumstance  connected  with  the  baptism  of 
Saul  of  Tarsus  in  favor  of  immersion,  but  all  to  the  contrary. 
The  simple  scriptural  account  is  to  be  analyzed. 

First.  It  is  probable  that  he  was  baptized  in  the  house  of 
Judas.  u  And  the  Lord  said  unto  him,  Arise,  and  go  into 
the  street  which  is  called  Straight,  and  inquire  in  the  house 
of  Judas  for  one  called  Saul  of  Tarsus :  for,  behold,  he 
prayeth."  u  Here  Ananias  finds  him  :  "  And  Ananias  went 
his  way,  and  entered  into  the  house;  and  putting  his  hands 

12  Acts  ix.  11. 


COLLATERAL    PROOFS.  129 


on  him,  said/'  &c.  (Ver.  17.)  It  is  to  be  remembered  that 
Paul  had  not  eaten  nor  drunk  any  thing  for  three  days : 
11  and  he  was  three  days  without  sight,  and  neither  did  eat 
nor  drink/'  (Ver.  9.)  And  so  Ananias  finds  him  lying  down, 
and  in  a  state  of  extreme  debility.  It  is  improbable  there- 
fore that,  in  this  state  of  debility,  he  left  the  house  for  the 
purpose  of  being  immersed;  and  we  may  rationally  infer 
that  he  was  baptized  in  the  house,  which  inferentially  ex- 
eludes  immersion. 

Secondly.  It  is  improbable  that,  in  this  state  of  debility,  he 
was  immersed  at  all.  Prudence  would  have  suggested  delay 
at  least  till  he  should  have  recovered  strength  adequate  to 
the  process  of  immersion.     But  he  is  baptized  the  same  day. 

Thirdly.  It  is  stated,  "He  arose  and  was  baptized" — pro- 
perly, "  he  standing  up — dvaffraq — was  baptized."  Not,  that 
"he  arose,"  went  out,  sought  a  stream,  and  was  "buried  in  a 
watery  grave ;"  but  that  he  stood  up,  in  the  house,  and  teas 
baptized — a  simple  statement  that  justifies  the  inference 
that,  in  his  weakened  state,  occasioned  by  a  long  and  rigid 
fast,  unable  to  leave  the  house,  and  too  feeble  to  bear  plung- 
ing in  water  in  the  house,  he  was  baptized  on  the  spot  by 
sprinkling  or  pouring  water  on  his  head.  This  word  is  the 
second  indefinite  participle  from  the  verb  anistemi,  and,  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  is  translated  twice,  arise — eight 
times,  arose — and  four  times,  stood  up.  It  never  conveys 
the  idea  of  motion  from  a  place,  but  the  action  of  rising  up, 
or  standing — nothing  more;  and  as  no  word  is  employed 
with  it  signifying  that  Paul  left  the  house,  the  inference  is 
clear  that  Paul  was  standing  on  his  feet  when  he  was  bap- 
tized, which  utterly  excludes  the  idea  of  immersion,  and 
favors  that  of  perfusion. 

(6.)  The  last  case  we  shall  notice,  is  1  Peter  iii.  20,  21 : 
"  The  long-suffering  of  God  waited  in  the  days  of  Xoah, 
while  the  ark  was  a  preparing,  wherein  few,  that  is  eight 


130  THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


souls,  were  saved  by  water.  The  like  figure  whereunto  even 
baptism  doth  now  save  us,  (not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth 
of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward 
God,)  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ."  "We  shall  dis- 
miss this  objection  with  a  few  words. 

First.  The  apostle  at  a  single  stroke  destroys  the  argument 
of  all  who  contend  for  mere  mode,  or  the  quantity  of  the 
water,  or  the  physical  effect  of  water,  as  essential  to  baptism. 
"Not  the  putting  aicay  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh" — not  the 
letter,  but  the  substance — not  the  act,  but  the  thing  signified 
by  baptism,  saves  us.  2.  Immersion,  as  a  mode  of  baptism, 
cannot  be  intended  in  this  passage  as  saving;  for  Xoah  and 
those  with  him  floated  in  the  ark  above  the  waters.  3.  Im- 
mersion in  this  case  proved  fatal  to  the  antediluvians,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  Egyptians  in  the  Red  Sea.  4.  Immersion 
was  the  very  evil  from  which  the  ark  effected  deliverance. 
5.  If  the  mode  of  baptism  may  be  inferred  from  this  passage, 
it  must  be  sprinkling,  for  the  ark  was  borne  on  the  surface 
of  the  water,  and  sprinkled  with  the  rain  that  fell  from 
heaven.  6.  Wherever  baptism  is  referred  to  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, in  connection  with  water  or  not,  the  Baptists  invaria- 
bly find  immersion.  John  is  found  at  Jordan — therefore  he 
immersed.  John  is  found  "  beyond  Jordan" — therefore  he 
immersed.  John  is  found  at  Enon — therefore  he  immersed. 
John  baptized  "with  water" — therefore  he  immersed.  The 
twelve  apostles  baptized  three  thousand  persons  in  Jerusalem, 
the  same  day — therefore  they  were  immersed.  The  jailer 
was  baptized  in  the  jail — therefore  he  was  immersed.  Both 
Philip  and  the  eunuch  went  down  into,  and  came  up  out  of 
the  water — therefore  one,  and  not  the  other,  was  immersed. 
Lydia  was  baptized  at  a  prayer-meeting — therefore  she  was 
immersed.  Cornelius  was  baptized  in  his  house — therefore 
he  was  immersed.  Saul  was  baptized  in  the  house  of  Judas 
— therefore  he  was  immersed,     "  We  are  buried  by  baptism 


COLLATERAL    PROOFS.  131 


into  death" — therefore  we  are  to  be  immersed.  The  Israel- 
ites were  "  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea" 
— therefore  they  were  immersed — though  they  were  on  " dry 
land."  And  so  Xoah  and  those  with  him  were  immersed — 
though  the  ark  floated  at  the  time  on  the  water,  and  was 
sprinkled  by  the  rain  that  fell  from  heaven.  In  all  these 
examples,  the  fact  of  baptism  is  all  that  is  intended  or  is 
important ;  the  mode  is  non-essential,  and  is  a  matter  of  in- 
ference, and  consequently  altogether  optional  with  the  subject 
of  baptism. 

We  have  omitted  in  this  category  the  case  of  the  eunuch, 
since  we  have  considered  it  at  length  in  the  preceding  parts 
of  this  work. 

Fifthly.  Among  collateral  proofs  in  favor  of  sprinkling  and 
pouring,  may  be  mentioned  the  disposition  of  the  Baptists 
to  make  a  new  version  of  the  Bible,  in  the  translation  of 
3a--i*io.  This  is  an  open  confession  that  the  advantage 
fairly  obtained  from  the  word,  as  it  stands  in  our  translation, 
is  not  satisfactory  to  them,  though  they  say,  "  any  one  who 
reads  can  understand."  Why  then  desire  to  change  it? 
Are  immersionists  the  only  clear-headed  and  honest  men  in 
the  world  ?  Will  they  not  admit,  that  there  are  others 
besides  themselves  who  are  possessed  of  classic  knowledge 
sufficient  to  examine  and  translate  the  original  Greek  and 
Hebrew,  and  of  moral  honesty  too,  to  publish  their  convic- 
tions to  the  world?  Why  then  change  the  translation? 
Pardon  me,  my  brethren.  Luther  wished  the  Epistle  of 
James  torn  out  of  the  Bible  and  burned  up,  because  it  opposed 
his  doctrine  of  faith  without  works;  but  afterward,  when  he 
was  taught  better,  he  admitted  the  genuineness  and  ac- 
knowledged the  authority  of  this  epistle.  Mr.  Jewett,  a 
clergyman  who  left  the  Presbyterian  Church  and  joined  the 
Baptists,  says,  in  a  book  published  by  him  on  baptism — 
"  Had  the  translators  of  our  version   possessed  the  light 


132  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 


which  the  labors  of  eminent  philologists  during  the  last  fifty 
years  have  thrown  over  this  subject,  they  would  have  found 
themselves  obliged,  in  conscience,  to  translate  the  word  bop- 
tizo,  immerse,  in  all  cases;  and  they  would  not  have  con- 
sented to  adopt  it,  instead  of  translating  it,  thus  concealing 
the  mind  of  the  Spirit.  Nay,  more,  had  not  King  James, 
under  the  advice  of  the  bishops,  virtually  ordered  the  trans- 
lators not  to  translate  the  words  relating  to  baptism,  I  believe 
it  morally  certain  that  that  learned  and  pious  assembly, 
acting  even  under  the  inferior  light  which  they  enjoyed, 
would  have  rendered  the  word  in  every  instance  in  accord- 
ance with  the  views  maintained  in  this  discourse." 13  In  the 
first  place,  this  opinion  is  wholly  gratuitous.  Secondly,  it 
is  an  unmerited  reflection  upon  the  intelligence  and  moral 
honesty  of  the  translators,  King  James,  and  the  bishops. 
And  in  the  third  place,  this  reflection  is  made  by  an  ordinary 
man,  who  has  written  a  small  book  on  baptism,  made  up 
principally  of  quotations  and  opinions  from  authors  on  the 
subject,  a  thousand  times  refuted;  and  consequently  involving 
in  principle  the  reputation  of  his  own  book  long  before  it 
appeared. 

If  the  Baptists  should  succeed  in  changing  our  good  old 
English  version,  they  ought  also  to  change  their  own  name 
from  "  Baptists"  to  "  Immersionists,"  and  to  surrender  a 
name  of  which  they  have  boasted  ever  since  their  origin. 
For  unless  they  should  change  their  name,  to  correspond  to 
the  new  version,  their  heathen  converts  would  inquire,  what 
does  this  mean  ?  You  are  Baptists,  why  are  you  not  called 
Immersionists  ?  And  then  if  they  should  change  their 
name,  their  heathen  converts  would  find  out,  that  for  a  long 
time,  they  were  called  Baptists,  and  would  inquire,  why  was 
the  original  name  "  Baptists"  ever  changed,  if  it  was  clear 
that  "baptizd"  meant  to  immerse? 

13  Third  ed.  p.  61. 


UNFAIRNESS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  133 


Sixthly.  Among  collateral  proofs  in  favor  of  sprinkling 
and  pouring,  may  be  mentioned  also  the  disposition  of  im- 
mersionists  to  destroy  the  argument  from  analogy  between 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  external  baptism,  by 
denying  and  attempting  to  disprove  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  altogether.14  This  effort  clearly  proves,  that  the 
force  of  analogy  between  the  two  modes  is  unfavorable  to  the 
views  of  the  Baptists.  For  why  assail  so  boldly  a  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  salvation — the  baptism  of  the  Holy  G-host 
— if  there  is  no  resemblance  between  the  modes  of  spiritual 
and  water  baptisms  ?  This  daring  adventure  is  an  admission 
equivalent  to  a  triumphant  argument  in  favor  of  the  validity 
of  sprinkling  and  pouring,  while  it  displays  a  reckless  pre- 
sumption in  the  professed  friends  of  the  Bible,  surpassed 
only  by  the  intolerant  and  inveterate  opposition  of  the 
avowed  and  insidious  enemies  of  the  Cross. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

UNFAIRNESS   OF   THE   BAPTISTS. 

"We  continue  the  examination  of  the  collateral  proofs  in 
favor  of  sprinkling  and  pouring  as  the  most  proper  modes  of 
baptism. 

Seventhly.  Almost  all  the  learning  and  piety  of  the 
Christian  church,  from  the  days  of  the  apostles  to  the  present 
time,  have  advocated  and  practised  the  modes  of  sprinkling 
and  pouring,  and  opposed  the  doctrine  of  exclusive  immersion. 
This  argument  is  accumulative  in  its  strength ;  and  as  time 
refutes  error  and  confirms  the  truth,  we  may  regard  the 


14  This  remark  has  reference  principally  to  the  Campbellites- 
Lle  heresy,  to  which  we  shall  refer  again  hereafter. 

12 


134  THE    MODE   OP   BAPTISM. 


testimony  of  the  church  for  eighteen  hundred  years  as  sub- 
stantial ground  for  the  continuation  of  the  practice  of  sprin- 
kling and  pouring  at  the  present  time.  Not  a  fiftieth  part 
of  all  the  Protestants  in  the  world  believe  in  the  exclusive- 
ness  of  immersion ;  and  Dr.  Kurtz,  of  the  Lutheran  Church, 
says,  "  probably  not  one-sixtieth  part  practise  immersion." 
The  Baptists  sometimes  claim  the  practice  of  the  Greek 
church  in  favor  of  their  views,  and  yet  the  Greek  Church 
practises  trine  immersion,  and  maintains  that  baptism  in 
this  form  is  absolutely  necessary.  Besides,  after  these  im- 
mersions, they  sprinkle  the  subject.  So  that,  in  no  respect, 
can  the  Greek  Church  be  adduced  in  support  of  the  claims 
of  the  Baptists. 

Let  me  here  correct  one  of  the  most  captivating,  insidious, 
and  extensive  impositions  ever  invented  and  inflicted  on  the 
human  mind — one,  to  a  great  extent,  without  question,  a 
fruitful  means  in  causing  doubtful  minds  to  settle  down 
finally  upon  the  exclusiveness  of  immersion — an  imposition, 
therefore,  to  which  may  be  ascribed  much  of  the  success  of 
the  Baptist  Church  in  obtaining  accessions  to  her  numbers 
and  influence,  in  all  parts  of  the  land  where  she  can  impose 
upon  those  who  are  destitute  both  of  the  discrimination  and 
information  necessary  to  baflle  the  well-contrived  design. 
The  imposition  is  this : — The  Baptists,  in  quoting  the 
opinions  of  the  church  on  the  subject  of  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism, very  often  adduce  psedobaptist  authors,  divines,  and 
commentators,  as  witnesses  in  favor  of  immersion;  and  in 
doing  this,  they  confound  the  admissions  of  the  validity  of 
immersion  as  a  valid  mode,  with  concessions  in  favor  of 
immersion  as  the  only  valid  mode.  Nay  more ;  they  in- 
geniously blend  the  admission  of  paedobaptist  authors,  di- 
vines, and  commentators,  with  their  own  bold  assumption 
that  immersion  was  the  only  mode  of  baptism  practised  by 
the  apostles  and  the  primitive  church. 


UNFAIRNESS   OF   THE   BAPTISTS.  135 


Why  do  the  Baptists,  in  quoting  paedobaptist  authorities, 
keep  back  a  part  of  their  opinions,  and  triumphantly  exhibit 
that  part  which  admits  the  validity  of  immersion  merely  as 
a  valid  mode  ?  "Why  do  they  keep  their  congregations  in 
ignorance  on  this  subject  ?  "Was  there  ever  a  more  flagrant 
injustice  imposed  on  the  public  mind  ?  Let  me  state  the 
case  clearly,  openly,  and  fully.  The  authorities,  ancient 
and  modern,  with  some  exceptions,  admit  that  immersion 
was  an  apostolic  mode  of  baptism,  but  at  the  same  time  they 
maintain  that  it  was  not  the  only  apostolic  mode ;  the  Bap- 
tists maintain  that  it  was  the  only  apostolic  mode  :  in  this 
they  differ.  The  authorities  support  infant  baptism  as  an 
apostolic  practice ;  the  Baptists  do  not  :  in  this  they  differ. 
The  authorities  oppose  "  close  communion f  the  Baptists 
maintain  and  practise  it :  in  this  they  differ.  And  in  many 
other  respects,  the  authorities  and  the  Baptists  differ  as 
materially  as  in  those  we  have  mentioned.  Xow  what  have 
we  here  ?  Why,  the  Baptist  Church  standing  alone ;  not 
only  unsustained,  but  opposed,  in  many  respects,  by  all  the 
authorities  of  the  church  from  the  days  of  Christ  till  the 
present  time;  and  especially  unsupported,  and  even  opposed, 
in  her  interpretation  of  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo,  by 
the  paedobaptist  churches,  divines,  commentators,  classic 
scholars,  and  the  most  respectable  lexicographers,  with  but 
a  few  exceptions,  in  all  ages  of  the  Christian  era.  To  be 
governed  entirely  by  the  authorities,  the  Baptists  must  adopt 
the  other  modes  of  baptism  also:  otherwise  they  are  against 
them.  This  is  a  fair  view  of  the  whole  case ;  and  it  is  clear 
that  our  Baptist  brethren,  in  this  matter,  deal  very  unfairly 
with  the  authorities,  with  sister  churches,  with  their  own 
congregations,  and  with  you,  who,  at  this  time,  with  deep 
solicitude,  are  forming  your  opinions  on  the  whole  weignt 
of  evidence  in  support  of  Christian  baptism. 

Nor  is  this  all.     Almost  all  the  authorities  quoted  by 


136  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


the  Baptists,  so  far  from  supporting  their  exclusiveness  on 
the  subject  of  baptism,  have  written  expressly  against  it 
Scarcely  a  paedobaptist  author  of  eminence  has  existed  since 
the  origin  of  the  Baptist  Church,  who  has  not  made  the 
most  strenuous  opposition  to  the  very  tenet  which  is  the 
peculiarity  of  that  church,  and  which  distinguishes  it  from 
the  rest  of  the  Christian  churches.  Many  large  volumes 
might  be  compiled  from  the  works  of  psedobaptists,  which 
would  not  only  furnish  their  unqualified  testimony  on  this 
subject,  but,  as  we  believe,  would  effectually  overthrow  the 
pretensions  of  the  Baptists  to  exclusiveness  in  administering 
the  sacraments.  Let  the  opinions  of  a  few  represent  the 
rest. 

Wall  assures  us  that  the  first  body  of  men  of  which  we 
find  any  account,  who  denied  baptism  to  infants,  were  the 
Petrobrussians,  a  sect  of  the  Albigenses,  in  the  former  part 
of  the  twelfth  century.  Milner  affirms,  "a  few  instances 
excepted,  the  existence  of  the  anti-pasdobaptists  seems 
scarcely  to  have  taken  place  in  the  church  of  Christ,  till  a 
little  after  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation."  Calvin  de- 
clares "that  the  substance  of  baptism  being  retained,  the 
church,  from  the  beginning,  enjoyed  the  liberty  of  using 
somewhat  different  rites."  With  regard  to  infant  baptism, 
Dr.  Doddridge  says,  "  no  argument  can  be  drawn  from  these 
words  [the  great  commission]  to  the  prejudice  of  infant 
baptism."  Professor  Stuart,  after  having  at  large  consider- 
ed the  subject  of  sprinkling  as  compared  with  immersion, 
and  proved  that  the  former  is  equally  as  proper  as  the  latter, 
concludes  with  the  following  remarks  on  infant  baptism  : — 
w  I  have  only  to  say,  that  I  believe  in  both  the  propriety 
and  expediency  of  the  rite  thus  administered,  and  therefore 
accede  to  it  ex  animo.  Commands,  or  plain  and  certain  ex- 
amples, in  the  New  Testament  relative  to  it,  I  do  not  find. 
Nor,  with  my  views  of  it,  do  I  need  them.     If  the  subject 


UNFAIRNESS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  137 


bad  reference  to  what  is  fundamental  or  essential,  in  Chris- 
tianity, then  I  must  find  either  the  one  or  the  other  in  order 
to  justify  adopting  or  practising  it.  But  as  the  case  now 
stands,  the  general  analogy  of  the  ancient  dispensation;  the 
enlargement  of  privilege  under  the  gospel;  the  silence  of 
the  New  Testament  on  the  subject  of  receiving  children  into 
a  special  relation  to  the  church  by  the  baptismal  rite,  which 
shows,  at  least,  that  there  was  no  dispute  in  the  early  ages 
relative  to  this  matter;  the  certainty  that  in  Tertullian's 
days  the  practice  was  general ;  all  these  considerations  put 
together — united  with  the  conviction  that  baptism  is  a  sym- 
bol and  dedication,  and  may  be  so  in  the  case  of  infants  as 
well  as  adults,  and  that  it  brings  parents  and  children  into 
a  peculiar  relation  to  the  church,  and  under  peculiarly  re- 
cognised obligations — serve  to  satisfy  me  fuV.y  that  the 
practice  may  be  and  should  be  continued."  Is  it  not  sur- 
prising that  the  Rev.  James  D.  Knowles,  professor  in  the 
Newton  Theological  Institution,  and  many  others  with  him, 
should,  notwithstanding  this  clear  statement  of  his  views  re- 
specting the  modes  and  subjects  of  baptism,  present  Professor 
Stuart  to  the  world  as  a  witness  in  favor  of  exclusive  immer- 
sion ?  Professor  Knowles  quotes  the  language  of  Professor 
Stuart  as  follows  : — "  After  citing  the  testimony  of  many 
ancient  writers,  Professor  Stuart  says  :  '  But  enough.  It  is, 
says  Augusti,  "  a  thing  made  out/'  viz.  the  ancient  practice 
of  immersion.  So  indeed  all  the  writers  who  have  thoroughly 
investigated  the  subject  conclude.  I  know  of  no  one  usage 
of  ancient  times  which  seems  to  be  more  clearly  and  cer- 
tainly made  out/  I  cannot  see  how  it  is  possible  for  any 
candid  person  who  examines  the  subject  to  deny  this/' 
Here  is  not  one  word  in  favor  of  the  exclusiveness  of  the 
Baptists.  Professor  Stuart  admits  that  immersion  was  a 
mode,  but  not  the  only  mode  of  baptism  practised  by  the 
primitive  church ;  for  he  goes  on  to  prove,  with  equal  clear- 

12* 


138  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 


ness,  that  sprinkling  also  was  equally  valid,  and  that  infant 
baptism  was  proper,  and  obligatory  on  the  Christian  church. 
Professor  Stuart  does  not  attempt  to  prove,  as  the  Baptists 
do,  that  immersion  is  a  positive  institution  enjoined  hy 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  but  his  design  is  to  vindicate  tin 
occasional  practice  of  immersion  by  the  psedobaptist  churci 
from  primitive  times,  through  all  succeeding  ages  to  th< 
present  time,  and  thus  to  establish  the  admissibility  of  im 
mersion  as  a  baptismal  ceremony  of  the  Christian  dispensa 
tion.  The  admission  of  the  validity  of  a  ceremony  should 
not  be  distorted  into  an  acknowledgment  of  its  exclusiveness, 
however  anciently  it  may  have  been  practised. 

Pendleton,  in  his  work  on  "  Baptism  and  Communion," 
represents  Professor  Stuart  as  saying  that  baptizo  "  means 
only  immerse,  overwhelm."  "  It  is  worthy  of  remark,"  says 
he,  "that  Professor  Stuart,  throughout  the  Greek  classics  and 
the  Septuagint,  assigns  to  the  word  baptizo  only  immerse, 
overwhelm,"  p.  30.  We  will  refute  this  gross  misrepresenta- 
tion of  the  Baptists  by  referring  to  the  work  of  Professor 
Ripley,  himself  a  Baptist,  who  reviewed  Professor  Stuart's 
essay  on  the  "  Mode  of  Baptism,"  published  in  the  Biblical 
Repository,  April,  1833.  He  quotes  (p.  26)  Professor 
Stuart,  as  follows  :  "  5. — To  wash,  cleanse  by  water,  where 
fta-rga>  is  used;"  and  observes,  (p.  33,]  "the  method  by 
which  Professor  Stuart  would  show  that  pa-riZw  here  means 
to  cleanse  by  water,  is  liable  to  objection;"  and  continues, 
(p.  34,)  "  I  cannot  regard  the  statement  as  sufficiently  sus- 
tained, that  ,3a-Tt^uj  in  the  Septuagint  and  Apocrypha  means 
simply  to  icasli,  to  cleanse  Ly  water,  without  containing  any 
reference  to  the  manner,  or  the  extent  of  the  washing." 
Here  then,  according  to  Professor  Ripley,  Professor  Stuart 
did  not  restrict  the  meaning  of  paatTi£w  to  "  immerse,  over- 
whelm/' as  is  asserted  by  Mr.  Pendleton.  Again,  Professor 
Ripley,  (p.  55,)  quotes  Professor  Stuart :  "  We  have  also 


UNFAIRNESS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  130 


seen  in  Nos.  2,  5,  6,  of  examples  from  the  Septuagint  and 
Apocrypha,  that  the  word  baptizo  sometimes  means  to  wash. 
There  is  then  no  absolute  certainty  from  usage,  that  the  word, 
when  applied  to  designate  the  rite  OF  baptism,  means  of 
course  to  immerse  or  plunge."     This  is  conclusive. 

We  invite  attention  to  the  unfairness  of  Mr.  Booth,  in  his 
book  entitled  "  Paedobaptism  Examined,"  in  which  he  has 
made  quotations  from  nearly  a  hundred  psedobaptist  authors 
to  support  the  tenet  of  exclusive  immersion.  We  shall  ex- 
amine his  work  by  the  chapter. 

(1.)  His  quotations  from  at  least  twenty  learned  Paedo- 
baptist  authors  on  the  subject  of  positive  institutions,  prove 
nothing  at  all  on  the  subject  of  the  mode  of  baptism,  since 
not  one  of  these  quotations  was  designed  by  its  author  to 
bear  in  the  remotest  degree  upon  the  mode  of  baptism.  Mr 
Booth  argues  from  the  important  principles  of  positive  insti- 
tutions to  the  mode  of  baptism,  inferring,  that  the  authors 
he  quoted  had  reference  to  the  mode  of  baptism ;  and  thus 
his  "  seven  reflections"  that  follow  are  nothing  more  than 
false  inferences  of  his  own,  and  palpable  perversions  of  his 
authors. 

(2.)  He  next  adduces  the  testimonies  of  eighty -two  au- 
thors, concerning  the  signification  of  the  terms  baptize  and 
baptism.  In  the  outset,  he  is  forced  in  candor  to  forewarn 
his  readers  that  "no  inconsiderable  part  of  his  authors  assert 
that  the  word  baptize  signifies  pouring  and  sprinkling,  as 
well  as  immersion."  And  he  admits  at  the  same  time  that 
these  authors  "  may  be  justly  numbered  among  the  first  lite- 
rary characters  that  any  age  has  produced,"  and  conse- 
quently were  fully  capable  of  judging  correctly  in  the  pre- 
mises. Consequently,  the  authorities  adduced  do  not  support 
the  dogma  of  exclusive  immersion. 

(3.)  His  next  step  is  to  adduce  seventy-five  testimonies 
from  paedobaptist  authors  in  proof  of  the  design  of  baptism. 


140  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 


Not  one  of  these  authors  bears  testimony  that  the  design  of 
baptism  can  be  expressed  or  set  forth  only  by  immersion, 
nor  do  they  all  admit  the  validity  of  immersion  as  a  mode 
by  which  the  design  of  baptism  may  be  set  forth.  Indeed, 
in  some  instances,  immersion  is  not  even  mentioned  or  re- 
ferred to,  as  in  the  testimony  of  Chamierus  :  "  they  who  are 
baptized  represent  the  death  of  Christ,  and  at  the  same  time 
their  own/'  Mr.  Booth  supposed  Chamierus  used  the  term 
"baptized"  synonymously  with  immersion;  and  Chamierus 
is  in  part  wrong,  for  the  eucharist  represents  the  death  of 
Christ.  And  in  other  instances,  sj>rinkling  is  mentioned  as 
answering  the  design  of  baptism,  as  in  the  testimony  of 
Surretinus :  "  As  now  persons  to  be  baptized  are  sprinkled 
with  water ;  so  they  are  sprinkled  with  the  blood  and  spirit 
of  Christ  to  the  washing  away  of  sin."  All  the  quotations 
made  by  Mr.  Booth  from  pasdobaptist  authors  prove  nothing 
in  favor  of  exclusive  immersion,  and  whenever  Mr.  Booth 
differs  from  his  authorities,  as  he  does  in  many  instances, 
of  course  they  are  to  be  regarded  as  against  him. 

(4.)  He  next  adduces  ninety-six  testimonies  to  prove  that 
the  apostolic  mode  of  baptism  was  immersion.  He  com- 
mences this  chapter  also  with  a  candid  confession  :  ["  N.  B. — 
Candor  demands  that  we  should  here  acknowledge  that 
though  these  numerous  and  learned  authors  have  expressed 
themselves  in  the  following  manner,  yet  many  of  them  insist 
upon  it  as  highly  probable  that  the  apostles  did  some- 
times administer  baptism  by  pouring  or  sprinkling."] 
Ordinary  candor  could  not  have  made  a  better  confession, 
and  this  confession  is  fatal  to  the  doctrine  of  exclusive  im- 
mersion. Besides,  most  of  those  authors  whom  Mr.  B. 
adduces  in  proof  that  the  apostolic  mode  of  baptism  was 
immersion,  and  who,  as  he  admits,  affirm  that  the  apostles 
did  sometimes  administer  baptism  hy  pouring  or  sprinkling, 
are  also  the  very  authors  whom  he  adduced  in  the  preceding 


UNFAIRNESS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  141 


chapter  to  prove  that  the  design  of  baptism  could  D?  fully 
set  forth  only  hy  immersion  !  And  thus  as  these  ?.athors 
bear  testimony  also  for  sprinkling  and  pouring,  *hey  of 
course  maintain  that  the  design  of  baptism  may  be  repre- 
sented by  these  modes.  Not  one  of  these  authors  bears 
testimony  to  the  divine  institution  of  immersion  as  the  only 
proper  mode  of  baptism. 

(5.)  In  the  fifth  chapter,  he  refers  to  the  present  practice  of 
"  the  Greek  and  oriental  churches,  in  regard  to  the  mode"  of 
baptism.  But  some  of  his  witnesses  bear  testimony  also  to  the 
practice  of  infant  baptism,  as  Hasselquist :  "  The  Greeks 
christen  their  children  immediately  after  their  birth/'  &c.  And 
Anonymous :  "  The  Muscovite  priests  plunge  their  children 
three  times  over  head  and  ears  in  water."  And  one  of  these 
witnesses  bears  testimony  to  trine  immersion  as  the  "primi- 
tive manner."  "9.  Dr.  J.  G.  King:  The  Greek  church 
uniformly  practises  the  trine  immersion,  undoubtedly  the 
most  primitive  manner."  Here  Mr.  Booth  himself  admits 
the  authority  of  this  testimony  to  the  prevalence  of  infant 
baptism,  for  "  thirteen  centuries  ;"  so  that  in  his  eagerness  to 
prove  immersion  as  the  apostolic  mode,  he  likewise  adduces 
proof  to  support  the  apostolic  authority  of  infant  baptism, 
and  thus  at  a  single  stroke  overthrows  the  Baj>tist  Church — 
for  where  teas  the  Bajitist  Church  all  this  time? 

(6.)  He  next  endeavors  to  prove  from  the  same  sources, 
that  "  the  design  of  baptism  is  more  fully  expressed  by  im- 
mersion, than  by  pouring  or  sprinkling."  Then  it  is  obvious, 
on  his  own  admission,  that  pouring  or  sprinkling  expresses, 
in  some  degree,  at  least,  the  design  of  baptism.  Mr.  Booth's 
witnesses  are  the  same  good  old  authors  he  adduced  in  the 
preceding  chapters — every  one  of  whom  is  an  advocate  for 
sprinkling  and  pouring  as  proper  modes  of  baptism,  and 
Dr.  Wall,  one  of  his  authors,  has  written  the  most  powerful 


142  THE    MODE   OP   BAPTISM. 


defence  of  infant  baptism  ever  known  among  uninspired 
writers. 

(7.)  He  attempts  to  explain  "the  reasons,  rise,  and  pre- 
valence of  ponring  or  sprinkling,  instead  of  immersion." 
And  here  the  following  things  are  obvious.  First.  Sprin- 
kling or  pouring  was  admitted  in  certain  cases  of  sickness, 
feebleness,  and  in  cold  countries,  as  Mr.  Booth's  witnesses 
testify.  Secondly.  His  witnesses  likewise  prove,  by  the 
same  quotations,  the  validity  of  infant  baptism.  Thirdly. 
One  of  his  witnesses,  Dr.  Manton,  declares  that  "  Chris- 
tianity lieth  not  in  ceremonies ;  the  principal  thing  in  bap- 
tism is  the  rcashing  away  of  sin,  that  may  be  done  by  pour- 
ing on  of  water,  as  well  as  dipping."  Another  witness, 
"Walaeus,  declares  that  "  the  ancients,  in  cold  climates, 
generally  used  asjiersion  :  because  a  ceremony  that  is  free 
ought  always  to  give  way  to  charity."  Fourthly.  He  argues, 
because  "  infants  cannot  bear  plunging,  without  the  hazard 
of  health  and  life,  it  is  presumptive  argument  against  their 
claim  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism."  Upon  the  same  ground 
adults,  in  feeble  health,  have  no  claim  to  the  ordinance. 
The  principle  that  can  be  compromised  on  account  of  phy- 
sical weakness  in  adults,  can  be  compromised  for  the  same 
reason  in  the  case  of  infants  :  admit  sprinkling  as  valid,  and 
the  difficulty  vanishes  in  both  cases.  But  Mr.  B.  himself 
removes  this  objection  to  infant  baptism,  by  quotations  from 
medical  and  philosophical  men,  attesting  that  cold  ablutions 
are  not  objectionable  on  account  of  infantile  weakness. 

The  second  part  of  his  examination  of  psedobaptism  treats 
of  "  the  subjects  of  baptism,"  and  this  we  shall  also  consider 
by  the  chapter. 

(1.)  His  thirty -one  quotations  to  prove  that  there  is 
"  neither  express  precept,  nor  plain  example,  for  psedobap- 
tism,  in  the  Xew  Testament,"  are  nothing  more  than  bold 


UNFAIRNESS    OF    THE   BAPTISTS.  143 


*\^d  gross  mutilations  of  the  arguments  of  their  authors  in 
favor  of  infant  baptism. 

(2.)  He  asserts  that  there  is  "no  evidence  of  paedobap- 
tism  before  the  latter  end  of  the  second,  or  the  beginning 
of  the  third  century/'  and  adduces  twelve  witnesses  to  prove 
it — not  one  of  whom  lived  in  the  first  three  centuries  of  the 
Christian  era.  He  passes  over  in  cautious  silence  all  the 
Fathers  of  this  period,  all  of  whom  bear  positive  or  indirect 
testimony  to  the  apostolic  authority  and  validity  of  infant 
baptism.  Moreover,  in  the  preceding  chapter  of  his  work, 
he  had  quoted  largely  from  a  multitude  of  authors  to  prove 
the  primitive  authority  and  the  general  prevalence  of  im- 
mersion— often  intermingling  at  the  same  time  their  testi- 
monies in  favor  of  infant  baptism,  and  yet  it  is  surprising, 
that  he  overlooked  the  fact  that  the  same  witnesses  are  as 
credible  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  And  when  it  suits 
him,  he  argues  against  his  faithful  authorities !  They  are 
credible,  when  they  testify  in  his  favor — not  credible,  when 
they  oppose  him !  In  a  former  chapter,  Dr.  Wall  was 
paraded  with  his  hosts  of  witnesses  for  the  truth — now  he  is 
singled  out  as  his  antagonist !  And  why  ?  Because  he  ad- 
mits Irenaeus,  and  other  Fathers  of  the  church,  in  proof  of 
the  early  antiquity,  and  apostolic  origin  of  infant  baptism ! 
He  cries  out,  "Is  it  not  strange,  is  it  not  quite  unaccount- 
able, that  such  ambiguous  words  as  those  of  Irenaeus  should 
be  considered  by  our  opponents  as  the  most  explicit  of  any 
.a  record,  in  proof  that  paedobaptism  was  practised  so  early 
as  the  year  180?"  And  yet  but  a  few  pages  after,  in  con- 
sidering the  testimony  of  Origen,  he  without  hesitation 
"allows"  that  the  "passages"  adduced  from  his  writings 
"  are  plain  and  express  to  the  point"  Indeed,  such  is  the 
course  of  argument  pursued  by  Mr.  Booth  throughout  his 
book,  that  by  an  analogical  method,  one  might  prove  from 
■he  Bible  that  to  murder  is  a  divine  command :  "  Cain  rose 


144:  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 


up  against  Abel  his  brother,  and  slew  him" — "Go  thou  and 
do  likewise/'  But  after  all,  his  witnesses  prove  that  infant 
baptism  was  prevalent  in  the  latter  end  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, and  he  admits  that  "the  practice  of  infant  baptism 
did  prevail  in  the  latter  part  of  the  third  century." 

(3.)  In  the  third  and  last  chapter,  he  adduces  several 
testimonies  in  proof  of  "the  high  opinion  of  the  Fathers, 
concerning  the  utility  of  baptism" — and  many  of  his  wit- 
nesses, such  as  Luther,  Gerhardus,  Buddeus,  Deylingius, 
Vossius,  and  Dr.  Fiddes,  bear  testimony  to  the  efficacy  of 
baptism  in  the  salvation  of  infants. 

Mr.  Booth  pursues  just  such  a  course,  in  his  "Ptedobap- 
tism  Examined,"  as  a  certain  Danvers  in  England  pursued 
in  his  "Treatise  on  Baptism,"  which  was  replied  to  by  Mr. 
Walker.  The  course  pursued  by  Danvers  is  censured  by 
Dr.  Wall  in  the  following  very  just  and  strong  language — 
and  every  word  of  it  is  applicable  to  the  author  of  "Psedo- 
baptism  Examined."  "Here  by  the  way,"  says  Dr.  Wall, 
"I  cannot  but  take  notice  how  much  trouble  such  an  ad- 
venturous author  as  this  Danvers  is  able  to  give  to  such  a 
careful  and  exact  answerer  as  Mr.  Walker.  Danvers  does 
in  this  place  deal  with  above  twenty  other  writers  after  the 
same  rate  as  he  does  with  the  two  I  mentioned,  viz.  Scapula, 
Stephanos,  Pasor,  Vossius,  Leigh,  Casaubon,  Beza,  Chamier, 
Hammond,  Cajetan,  Musculus,  Piscator,  Calvin,  Keckerman, 
Diodatus,  Grotius,  Davenant,  Tilenus,  Dr.  Cave,  Wall,  Strabo, 
and  Tillotson.  Mr.  Walker  shows  that  he  has  abused  every 
one  of  them;  by  affixing  to  some  of  them  words  they  never 
said,  by  adding  to  others,  by  altering  and  mistranslating 
others,  and  by  curtailing  the  words  of  the  rest." * 

Respecting  the  unfairness  of  the  Baptists  in  adducing  the 
distorted  testimony  of  pasdobaptist  writers  in  proof  of  the 

'  Wall,  vol.  ii.  408,  409. 


UNFAIRNESS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  11 


practice  of  the  primitive  church,  Dr.  "Wall  himself  had  oc- 
casion to  observe  in  his  History  of  Infant  Baptism  :  "  This 
I  have  seen  done/'  says  he,  "a  hundred  times,  when  the 
same  author  that  is  quoted  does  sometimes  in  the  same 
treatise,  and  sometimes  in  other  parts  of  his  works,  show 
that  infants  are  to  be  baptized,  as  being  in  a  case  that  is 
exempt  from  the  general  rule  that  requires  faith,  prayer, 
epentance,  and  other  personal  preparations." 2  This  in- 
justice he  experienced  at  the  hand  of  Mr.  Gale,  in  his  "Re- 
flections" on  his  work.  To  which,  "Dr.  Wall,"  in  his  "De- 
fence," replies:  "After  a  smoothing  compliment,  he  in  the 
next  words  sets  up  against  me  one  of  the  falsest  accusations 
and  most  abominable  calumnies  that  in  all  the  seventy  years 
of  my  life  was  ever  thrown  upon  me  by  any  lewd  or  slander- 
ous tongue  or  pen.  He  makes  me  a  teacher  of  a  false  doc- 
trine, contrary  to  the  principles  of  the  church  of  which  I 
am  a  member,  and  contrary  to  what  I  have  always  taught 
therein,  and  contrary  to  what  I  declare  in  many  places  of 
the  book  he  had  before  him.  A  doctrine  that  was  never 
maintained  by  any  Christian  [beside  the  antipcedobaptists 
themselves]  but  by  some  late  papists;  viz.  that  I  ' freely 
allow  that  it  cannot  be  made  to  appear  from  the  Scriptures 
that  infants  are  to  be  baptized/  I  have  been  forced  by 
this  foul  and  importunate  cavil  to  look  over  those  places  of 
my  own  book  where  I  do  enforce  the  proof  of  infant  baptism 
from  several  texts  of  Scripture.  I  did  bring  many  proofs 
from  God's  word,  which  stand  as  so  many  evidences  of  the 
falsehood  of  this  false  charge  against  me.  Of  his  untruths, 
I  would  beforehand  instance  in  one  flagrant  and  manifest 
one  (which,  as  I  shall  show,  he  has  affirmed  above  twenty 
times  over)  his  saying,  that  I  have  in  my  book  yielded  and 
owned  that  there  is  no  Scripture  proof  for  infant  baptism ; 


2  Vol.  i.  328. 
13 


146  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM, 


though  near  half  his  book  be  spent  in  refuting  (as  well  as  lie 
can)  those  proofs  which  I  brought  from  Scripture."3 

One  more  remark  on  the  unfairness  of  Mr.  Jewett.  He 
quotes  Calvin  in  proof  of  the  declaration,  "  that  none  but 
believers  are  entitled  to  baptism."4  He  thus  refers  to 
Calvin :  "  Calvin.  Because  Christ  required  teaching  be- 
fore baptizing,  and  will  have  believers  only  admitted  to 
baptism,  baptism  does  not  seem  to  be  rightly  administered, 
except  faith  precede/'  Calvin,  in  this  quotation,  is  referring 
to  adult  baptism,  in  which  case  faith  must  "precede"  bap- 
tism. But  on  the  subject  of  infant  baptism — and  certainly 
infants  cannot  "believe" — he  observes,  "as  some  turbulent 
spirits  in  the  present  age  have  raised  fierce  disputes,  which 
still  continue  to  agitate  the  church,  on  the  subject  of  infant 
baptism,  I  cannot  refrain  from  adding  some  observations 
with  a  view  to  repress  their  violence." 5  And  he  adds,  that 
those  who  affirm  that  infant  baptism  was  unknown  till  a 
long  time  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  " therein  lie  most 
abominably ;  for  there  is  no  icriter  so  ancient  that  doth  not 
certainly  refer  the  beginning  thereof  to  the  age  of  the  apostles." 
"We  bid  Mr.  Jewett  adieu — for  the  present. 

We  proceed  next  to  the  vindication  of  Mr.  Wesley,  who 
has  often  been  adduced  in  proof  of  the  dogma  of  exclusive 
immersion.  Copious  extracts  from  his  works  we  now  lay 
before  the  reader.  "I  made  an  end  of  visiting  the  classes," 
says  he,  "miserably  shattered  by  showers  of  strange  doc- 
trine. At  one  I  preached  at  Tipton  Green,  where  the  Bap- 
tists also  have  been  making  havoc  of  the  flock,  which  con- 
strained me,  in  speaking  on  these  words,  '  Arise,  and  be 
baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins/  to  spend  some  ten  mi- 
nutes in  controversy,  which  is  more  than  I  had  done  in  pub- 


s  Wall,  vol.  iv.  66,  175-177.  4  Jewett  on  Baptism,  p.  102. 

fi  Insts.  b.  iv.  e.  16,  see.  1.  6  Wesley's  Works,  vol.  iii.  510 


UNFAIRNESS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  147 


lie  for  many  months  (perhaps  years)  before."  6  And  so  it 
seems  Mr.  Wesley,  as  well  as  Calvin,  met  with  "  turbulent 
spirits  who  agitated"  the  church  on  the  subject  of  baptism. 

Referring  to  the  multitudes  baptized  by  John,  Mr.  "Wesley 
says,  "Such  prodigious  numbers  could  hardly  be  baptized 
by  immersing  their  whole  bodies  under  water;  nor  can  we 
think  they  were  provided  with  change  of  raiment  for  it,  which 
was  scarcely  practicable  for  such  vast  multitudes.  And  yet 
they  could  not  be  immersed  naked  with  modesty,  nor  in  their 
wearing  apparel  with  safety.  It  seems,  therefore,  that  they 
stood  in  ranks  on  the  edge  of  the  river,  and  that  John,  pass- 
ing along  before  them,  cast  water  on  their  heads  or  faces, 
by  which  means  he  might  baptize  many  thousands  in  a  day."  7 

Concerning  "washing  of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen  vessels, 
and  couches,"  he  observes,  "The  Greek  word  (haptismos) 
meaizs  indifferently  either  washing  or  sprinkling.  The  cups, 
pots,  and  vessels  were  washed;  the  couches  sprinkled."8 

"'And  they  both  went  down' — out  of  the  chariot.  It 
does  not  follow  that  he  was  baptized  by  immersion.  The 
text  neither  affirms  nor  intimates  any  thing  concerning  it."  9 

"'We  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism' — alluding  to  the 
ancient  mode  of  baptizing  by  immersion." 10  And  here  the 
Baptists  raise  the  shout !  But  does  Mr.  Wesley  say  that 
the  only  ancient  mode  of  baptizing  was  immersion?  Did 
he  believe  it?  Assuredly  not;  or  he  would  have  positively 
concluded,  as  the  Baptists  do,  that  the  eunuch  was  im- 
mersed; but  on  the  contrary,  he  declares  that  "it  does  not 
follow  that  he  was  baptized  by  immersion."  If  he  believed 
that  the  only  mode  of  baptizing  among  the  ancients  was  im- 
mersion, why  does  he  say  that  John  ucast  icater  on  the  heads 
and  faces"  of  the  multitudes  whom  he  baptized  ?     That  Mr. 


7  Notes  on  New  Test.  Matt.  iii.  6.  f  Notes,  Mark  vii.  4. 

9  Dad.  Acts  viii.  33.  »  Ibid.  Rom.  vi.  4. 


148  THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


"Wesley  did  not  believe  immersion  was  the  only  mode  of 
baptism  practised  anciently,  is  evident  from  his  note  on  Col. 
ii.  12 :  "Buried  with  him  in  baptism,  by  which  ye  also  are 
risen  with  him  through  faith  of  the  operation  of  God."  Mr. 
Wesley  comments :  "The  ancient  manner  of  baptizing  by 
immersion  is  as  manifestly  alluded  to  here,  as  the  ancient 
manner  of  baptizing  by  sprinkling  or  pouring  of  water 
is  in  Heb.  x.  22.  But,"  he  adds,  "no  stress  is  laid  on 
the  age  of  the  baptized,  or  the  manner  of  performing  it,  IN 
one  or  the  other  place."  This  is  decisive.  But  we 
continue  our  references.  "'And  were  all  baptized  unto 
Moses,  in  the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea' — perhaps  sprinkled 
here  and  there  with  drops  of  water  from  the  sea  or  cloud, 
by  which  baptism  might  be  more  evidently  signified."  u  In 
his  Journal,  he  observes,  "  I  baptized  seven  adults,  two  of 
them  by  immersion."12  Of  course,  the  other  five  were  bap- 
tized some  other  way,  probably  by  sprinkling,  &  his  note 
above  on  1  Cor.  x.  2  enables  us  to  conclude 

The  catholic  views  of  Mr.  Wesley  on  the  mode  of  baptism 
may  be  obtained  from  his  treatise  on  Baptism,  published  in 
the  year  1756,  and  contained  in  his  works,  vol.  vi.  p.  12. 
We  make  the  following  extracts.  "Baptism,"  says  he,  "is 
performed  by  washing,  dipping,  or  sprinkling  the  person  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Grhost,  who  is  hereby 
devoted  to  the  ever-blessed  Trinity.  I  say  by  washing,  dip- 
ping, or  sprinkling;   BECAUSE  IT  IS  NOT  DETERMINED  IN 

Scripture  in  which  of  these  ways  it  should  be  done, 
neither  by  any  express  precept,  nor  by  any  example 
as  clearly  proves  it;  nor  by  the  force  or  meaning 
OF  the  word  baptizo."  Beferring  to  the  washing  of  cups, 
&c,  according  to  the  Jewish  custom,  he  says,  "Here,  then, 
the  word  baptism,  in  its  natural  sense,  is  not  taken  for  dip- 

11  Notes,  1  Cor.  x.  2.  12  Works,  vol.  iv.  16,  March  21st,  1759. 


UNFAIRNESS    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  149 


ping,  but  for  washing  or  cleansing.  And  that  this  is  the 
true  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo,  is  testified  by  the  greatest 
scholars,  and  most  proper  judges  in  this  matter."  Again: 
"  As  there  is  no  clear  proof  of  dipping  in  Scripture,  so  there 
is  very  probable  proof  of  the  contrary.  It  is  highly  proba- 
ble the  apostles  THEMSELVES  baptized  great  numbers, 
not  by  dipping,  but  by  washing,  sprinkling,  or  pouring 
water.  This  clearly  represented  the  cleansing  from  sin, 
which  is  prefigured  by  baptism.  And  the  quantity  of  water 
was  not  material — no  more  than  the  quantity  of  bread  and 
wine  in  the  Lord's  supper."  And  so  he  concludes — "To  sum 
up  all,  the  manner  of  baptizing,  whether  by  dipping  or  sprin- 
kling, is  not  determined  in  Scripture.  There  is  no  command 
for  one  rather  than  the  other.  There  is  no  example  from 
which  we  can  conclude  for  dipping  rather  than  for  sprinkling. 
There  are  probable  examples  of  both ;  and  both  are  equally 
contained  in  the  natural  meaning  of  the  word."  a 

Dr.  Adam  Clarke  also  has  often  been  adduced  by  the  Bap- 
tists in  proof  of  the  exclusiveness  of  immersion — and  we  pro- 
ceed to  defend  him  before  the  reader.  In  his  observations 
at  the  end  of  Mark's  Gospel,  he  says,  "On  the  mode  of  ad- 
ministering baptism,  there  need  be  no  dispute  among  Chris- 
tians: both  dipping  and  sprinkling  are  legitimate  forms; 
and  either  may  be  used,  as  the  consciences  or  religious 
prejudices  of  the  parties  may  direct;  but  the  thing  itself,  in 

13  As  our  Baptist  brethren  are  very  fond  of  quoting  Mr.  Wesley  on 
baptism,  I  invite  their  attention  to  his  note  on  "  close  communion,"  as  it 
is  called.  Note,  Acts  xi.  17 :  "  Who  was  I,  that  I  could  withstand  God  ?" 
"  Particularly  laying  down  rules  of  Christian  communion,  which  exclude 
any  whom  he  hath  admitted  into  the  church  of  the  firstborn  from  wor 
shipping  God  together.  Oh  that  all  church-governors  would  consider 
how  bold  a  usurpation  this  is,  on  the  authority  of  the  Supreme  Lord  of 
the  church  !  Oh  that  the  sin  of  thus  withstanding  God  may  not  be  laid 
to  the  charge  of  those,  who,  perhaps  with  good  intention,  but  in  an  over- 
fondness  for  their  own  forms,  have  done  it,  and  are  continually  doing  it !" 
13* 


150  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


its  great  reference,  is  of  the  utmost  importance. "  Extracts 
from  his  Theology,  pp.  253,  254.  "Were  the  people  dipped 
or  sprinkled  ?  for  it  is  certain  bapto  and  baptizo  mean  both. 
'They  were  dipped/  say  some.  Can  any  man  suppose/' 
the  doctor  continues,  "  that  it  was  possible  for  John  to  dip 
all  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  and  Judea,  and  of  all  the 
country  round  about  Jordan  ?  Were  both  men  and  women 
dipped  ?  for  certainly  both  came  to  his  baptism.  This  never 
could  have  comported  with  safety  or  decency.  Were  they 
dipped  in  their  clothes  ?  This  would  have  endangered  their 
lives,  if  they  had  not  with  them  a  change  of  raiment.  But 
suppose  these  were  dipped,  which  I  think  it  is  impossible  to 
prove,  does  it  follow  that  in  all  regions  of  the  world  men 
and  women  must  be  dipped,  in  order  to  be  evangelically 
baptized?  Those  who  are  dipped  or  immersed  in  water,  in 
the  name  of  the  Trinity,  I  believe  to  be  evangelically  bap- 
tized. Those  who  are  washed  or  sprinkled  with  water  in 
the  name  of  the  Trinity,  I  believe  to  be  equally  so — and  the 
repetition  of  such  a  baptism  I  believe  to  be  profane.  To 
say  that  sprinkling  or  aspersion  is  no  gospel  baptism,  is  as 
incorrect  as  to  say  that  immersion  is  none.  Lastly,  to  assert 
that  infant  baptism  is  unscriptural,  is  as  rash  and  reprehensi- 
ble as  any  of  the  rest.  Myriads  of  conscientious  people 
choose  to  dedicate  their  infants  to  God  by  public  baptism. 
They  are  in  the  right ! — and  by  acting  thus,  follow  the 
yentral practice  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  church — a  prac- 
tice from  which  it  is  as  needless  as  it  is  dangerous  to  depart/' 

The  Baptists  have  made  the  same  plausible  and  capti- 
vating misrepresentations  in  explaining  the  old  versions  of 
the  Bible.     We  shall  mention  some  of  the  most  important. 

Martin  Luther's  version.  "  Luther,  one  of  the  great 
Reformers,  gave  the  Bible  translated  to  the  Germans,  that 
they  might  read  in  their  own  language  the  wonderful  works 
of  God,  and  he  rendered  baptize  into  the  word  signifying  to 


UNFAIRNESS    OF   THE   BAPTISTS.  151 


immerse."1  Again,  "Or  as  Luther,  the  great  reformer, 
renders  it  in  his  German  Testament,  Johannes  der  Tavfer — 
John  the  Dipper."  15  "  Other  translators  may  do  as  they 
please ;  baptize  may  be  twisted  into  all  sorts  of  meaning  ex- 
cept immersion — except  indeed  in  the  case  of  old  versions. 
Luther  may  say  that  it  means  to  immerse,  and  his  version 
shall  continue  to  be  circulated ;  but  wo  be  to  the  Baptists  if 
they  say  so )  and  what  is  the  reason  ?" l8 

Will  not  the  reader  be  surprised  when  he  is  reminded 
that  Luther  himself  baptized  by  sprinkling,  and  that  the 
Germans  and  all  the  Lutherans  who  use  this  very  transla- 
tion of  Luther,  also,  in  the  present  day,  baptize  by  sprin- 
kling ?  The  German  minister,  when  he  takes  the  water  in 
his  hand'and  sprinkles  or  pours  it  on  the  subject,  says,  "Ich 
iaufe  dich."  And  so  Luther  himself,  when  he  took  the 
water  in  his  hand,  and  sprinkled  or  poured  it  on  the  head 
of  the  subject,  said,  "Ich  tatjfe  dich."  The  meaning, 
therefore,  Luther  gave  to  tavfer  and  tavfen,  as  it  respects 
mode,  was  sprinkle  or  pour.  And  so  he  translates  the  word 
wash,  in  Mark  vii.  4  :  "  Und  wenn  sie  vom  markte  kommen, 
essen  sie  nich,  sie  "WASHEN  SICH  denn" — they  wash  them- 
selves. And  so  in  Luke  xi.  38.  "  Da  das  der  Pharisaer 
sah  vericunderte  er  sich,  dass  er  sich  nicht  vor  den  essen 
gewaschen  hatte" — had  not  washed  himself.  Indeed, 
the  Germans  use  these  words  with  specific  reference  to 
the  sacrament  of  baptism,  or  in  a  sense  that  signifies 
washing.  And  so  the  English  and  German  lexicographers 
translate  these  words,  and  whenever  they  use  words  express- 
ing immersion,  taufen,  is  not  among  them.17 

14  Mr.  Woolsey,  (a  Baptist,)  p.  75.  15  Ibid.  p.  138. 

16  Report  of  Baptist  Bible  Society  for  1840,  p.  89. 

11  English  and  German  Dictionary,  by  F.  A.  Weber,  Leipzic  ed.  1833. 
Buckhardt,  Berlin  ed.  1823.  Also,  English,  German,  and  French  Die- 
lionary,  3d  ed.,  Leipsic,  1763,by  Christian  Ludwig. 


152  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


The  Baptists  have  affirmed,  particularly  in  their  discus- 
sions with  the  Lutheran  Church,  "  that  Luther  himself,  the 
great  Reformer,  condemned  the  practice  of  sprinkling,  and 
even  disapproved  of  infant  baptism."  That  an  assertion  so 
entirely  unfounded  should  be  hazarded  by  any  one,  can  be 
explained  only  by  the  reckless  spirit  of  party  •  and  it  is,  a 
matter  of  regret  that  any,  specially  Christian  ministers,  in 
their  preaching  or  writings,  should  ever  sacrifice  candor  to 
the  impulse  of  such  a  spirit. 

Luther's  hostility  to  popery  is  not  susceptible  of  stronger 
proof  than  is  his  most  cordial  support  of  infant  baptism  and 
the  validity  of  sprinkliug.     The  proof  we  shall  now  give. 

"  That  the  dipping  of  a  child  in  water,  or  sprinkling  it 
with  icater  according  to  the  command  of  Christ,  should 
cleanse  it  from  sin  and  transfer  it  from  the  kingdom  of 
Satan  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  is  reviled  by  reason/'  &c. 
Singularia  Lutheri,  by  Philip  Saltzman,  Jena  edition,  1564, 
tit.  220,  art.  Baptism,  p.  657.  "Inasmuch  as  there  is 
neither  ornament  nor  honor  at  baptism,  and  God  does  out- 
wardly no  more  than  apply  a  handful  of  water,"  &c. 
Ibid.  chap.  viii.  p.  669.  "I  consider  that  by  far  the  safest 
baptism  is  the  baptism  of  children,"  &c.  Ibid.  chap.  x.  p. 
602.  "  Devils  must  flee  from  baptism ;  why  ? — they  do  not 
regard  the  water  and  the  letter,  but  it  is  because  God  has  com- 
manded that  we  must  use  our  hand  and  tongue  in  adminis- 
tering it  by  sprinkling  water  upon  the  subject  in  connec- 
tion with  the  words  prescribed  by  God/'  &c.  Ibid,  chap  xi. 
p.  663.  "Again,  if  any  one  can  obtain  baptism,  and  yet 
cavils  in  this  manner,  how  can  a  mere  handful  of  water  be 
of  any  benefit  ? — he  cannot  be  saved.  For  he  despises  God.  a 
word  and  the  ordinance  of  Christ;  he  treats  Christ  as 
though  he  had  acted  foolishly  in  ordaining  and  commanding 
things  useless"  Luther's  Works,  Achter  Theil,  fol.  58. 


UNFAIRNESS    OF    THE   BAPTISTS.  153 


Copy  of  a  letter  of  Dr.  M.  L.  to  his  beloved  wife,  written 
in  Halle : — 

"1546,  Num.  61. 
"  Grace  and  peace  in  the  Lord. 

"Dear  Katy,  we  arrived  at  Halle  to-day  at  8  o'clock, 
but  we  could  not  go  to  Eisleben.  We  were  met  by  a  large 
anabaptist  woman  with  waves  of  water  and  great  cakes  of 
ice  that  covered  the  ground ;  she  threatened  to  baptize  vs 
over  again,  and  as  we  could  not  retreat  in  consequence  of 
the  Mulda  (a  stream  of  water)  in  our  rear,  we  were  obliged 
to  remain  in  Halle,  between  the  waters;  not,  however,  as 
though  we  thirsted  for  so  much  icater,"  &c. 

Martinus  Luther,  D. 
"  To  my  kind  and  beloved  Katy  Luther, 
in  Wittenburg." 

Indeed,  Luther  was  baptized  in  infancy  by  affusion,  and 
considering  this  valid,  he  was  never  rebaptized.  Dr.  Fuller, 
a  learned  Baptist,  of  this  country,  in  his  work  on  "  Baptism 
and  Communion,"  p.  125,  observes,  "  Instead  of  restoring 
Christian  Baptism,  and  thus  extricating  themselves  from 
this,  as  from  other  corruptions,  Luther  and  Calvin  both 
allowed  infant  baptism  to  remain,  and  practised  it."  Dr. 
Fuller  has  too  much  good  sense  and  candor  to  bear  false 
witness  against  Luther,  and  certainly  he  will  be  received  by 
the  Baptists  as  a  credible  witness  in  the  premises. 

The  Peschito-Syriac  version.  The  most  extravagant 
assertions  have  been  made  concerning  the  antiquity  of  this 
version.  Bishop  Walton,  Carpzov,  Leusden,  Bishop  Lowth, 
and  Dr.  Kennicott  fix  its  date  in  the  first  century.  Bauer, 
and  some  other  German  critics,  in  the  second  century;  Jahn, 
at  the  latest,  in  the  second  century;  and  De  Rossi  pro- 
nounces it  to  be  very  ancient,  but  does  not  specify  any  pre- 


154:  THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


cise  date.  But  ihe  most  probable  opinion  is  that  of  Michaelis, 
who  ascribes  it  to  the  close  of  the  first,  or  to  the  early  part 
of  the  second  century.18  Mr.  "Woolsey  affirms  that  "the 
venerable  Peschito-Si/riac  version  was  evidently  executed 
by  the  last  of  the  first  century,"  19  that  it  is  "  the  very  best 
that  has  ever  been  made/'  and  that  it  has  baptize  translated 
by  immerse.  Tn  the  first  place,  this  very  version  reads, 
"when  she  (Lydia)  was  baptized  with  her  children."30 
Secondly.  This  is  proof  that  infant  baptism  existed  before 
the  close  of  the  second  century.  Thirdly.  It  is  not  admit^d 
that  this  version  translates  the  word  baptize  by  immerse. 
The  best  critics  deny  it,  and  say  that  "  the  Syriac  version 
employs  a  word  which  signifies  { to  confirm — to  establish' — 
that  is,  refers  to  '  the  rite'  of  confirmation,  while  the  manner 
of  this  is  apparently  left  without  being  at  all  expressed."  *■ 
Fourthly.  The  Baptists  themselves  confess  that  this  version 
is  not  favorable  to  their  views.  "  I  confess,  I  can  derive  no 
countenance  to  my  practice  as  a  Baptist  from  this  version."  M 
Fifthly.  This  version  is  the  present  Bible  of  the  Nestorian 
Christians,  and  their  word  for  baptize  is  exclusively  appro- 
priated to  the  sacrament  of  baptism.  Sixthly.  The  Nesto- 
rian Christians  u  baptize  either  by  immersion  or  affusion, 
and  make  no  objection  when  they  see  our  missionaries  bap- 
tize by  sprinkling,  but  consider  it  as  good  and  valid  bap- 
tism."23 

The   Dutch,   Danish,   and    Swedish    version.     The 


18  Home's  Introduction,  new  ed.,  from  the  8th  London  edition,  vol. 

l  2ro. 

19  p.  71. 

20  Kurtz,  p.  99.    "  The  Coptic  version  gives  the  same  reading."    Hall 
on  the  Law  of  Baptism. 

21  Judd's  reply  to  Professor  Stuart,  p.  164. 

22  See  New  York  Evangelist,  Jan.  23,  1841. 
*»  Hall  on  the  Law  of  Baptism,  3d  ed.  p.  130. 


UNFAIRNESS    OF    THE    EAPTTSTS.  155 


Baptists  affirm  that  the  "Dutch,  Danish,  and  Swedish  ver- 
sions have  the  words  in  dispute  translated  by  words  signify- 
ing immersion." **  Dr.  Henderson,  who  has  studied  the 
languages  of  Northern  Europe  on  the  ground,  and  is  familiar 
with  their  idioms,  shall  be  authority  upon  this  subject,  and 
no  one  will  question  him  as  authority.  Says  he,  "  As  it  re- 
spects the  Gothic  dialects,  which  have  been  repeatedly  ap- 
pealed to  with  great  confidence,  it  is  a  settled  point  with  all 
who  are  acquainted  with  them,  that  the  reference  is  totally 
irrelevant.  That  the  Mseso-Gothic  daupian,  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  dyppan,  the  Dutch  doopan,  the  Swedish  dopa,  the 
Danish  dobe,  and  the  German  taufen,  all  correspond  in 
sound  to  our  English  word  dip,  does  not  admit  of  any  dis- 
pute, any  more  than  the  fact  that  dab,  daub,  and  dub  have 
the  same  correspondence ;  but  nothing  would  be  more  erro- 
neous than  to  conclude,  with  the  exception  of  the  Anglo- 
Saxon,  that  they  have  the  same  signification.  No  Dutch- 
man, Dane,  Swede,  or  German  would  for  a  moment  imagine 
that  the  words  belonging  to  their  respective  languages  meant 
any  thing  else  than  baptism  by  the  application  of  water  to 
the  body  baptized.  The  words  are  never  used  in  those 
languages  in  another  sense,  or  in  application  to  any  other 
subject.  Where  the  Germans  would  express  dip  or  immerse, 
they  employ  tauchen  and  not  taufen,  which  is  the  word  by 
which  baptize  is  translated.  The  Danes,  in  like  manner,  use 
dyppe  and  neddyppe,  for  dip,  and  not  dobe.  And  that 
neither  Luther  nor  the  authors  of  the  Dutch,  Danish,  and 
Swedish  versions  had  any  intention  of  conveying  the  idea 
of  immersion  as  implied  in  baptize,  is  obvious  from  the  pre- 
position which  they  have  used  with  the  verb.  Thus  we  read 
in  German,  mit  wasser  taufen;  in  Danish,  dobe  met  vand; 


24  Report  of  the  American  Foreign  Bible  Society,  1840,  p.  38.     Wool- 
ly, p.  138. 


156  THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


in  Swedisb;  dopa  med  vatn;  in  Dutch,  doopen  met  wasser; 
i.  e.  with  water,  and  not  in  water )  which  phraseology  is  as 
foreign  to  these  languages  as  the  practice  which  it  would 
sanction  is  unknown  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  countries  in 
which  they  are  spoken.  Even  the  Mennonites  in  Holland, 
and  other  parts,  though  they  reject  infant  baptism,  adminis 
ter  the  ordinance  by  pouring,  and  not  by  immersion."  2S 
We  deem  it  needless  to  consider  the  unfairness  of  the  Bap- 
tists any  further  in  their  appeals  to  ancient  and  modern  ver- 
sions of  the  Bible  on  this  subject.  The  same  exposure  might 
be  made  in  every  attempt  which  they  make  to  support  their 
claims,  though  they  assume  that  "  to  iJiem  is  committed  the 
sole  guardianship  of  pure  and  faithful  translations  of  the 
oracles  of  God  into  the  languages  of  the  earth" 26  and  that 
they  are  u  divinely  and  peculiarly  set  for  the  defence  and 
dissemination  of  the  gospel,  as  delivered  to  men  by  its  Hea- 
venly Author  ;" a7  and  yet  these  "  guardians"  and  "  defenders" 
of  the  truth  are  divided  among  themselves,  in  their  transla- 
tions of  the  sacred  oracles — Campbell  and  Woolsey  on  one 
side,  and  Carson  and  Judd  on  the  other — with  Robert  Hall 
meanwhile  inflicting  some  of  the  heaviest  blows  upon  the  iron 
wall  of  "  close  communion"  that  ever  fell  from  mortal  hands. 
But  it  is  time  we  had  closed  these  remarks.  I  never 
knew  or  read  of  a  version,  ancient  or  modern,  that  sustains 
the  exclusiveness  of  the  Baptists  on  the  subject  of  baptism, 
and  I  never  knew  or  read  of  a  paedobaptist  author  who  ad- 
mitted the  validity  of  immersion  to  the  exclusion  of  sprin- 
kling and  pouring  as  proper  modes  of  baptism.  The  unfair- 
ness of  the  Baptists  in  adducing  paedobaptist  writers  as 
witnesses  to  the  exclusiveness  of  immersion  is  seen  in  this, 

25  Hall  on  the  Law  of  Baptism,  pp.  131,  132. 

26  American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  Report,  1840,  p.  79. 

27  Professor  Eaton,  irj  his  speech  before  the  Baptist  Bible  Society,  at  ita 
anniversary. 


UNFAIRNESS    OF   THE    BAPTISTS.  157 


that  they  pervert  their  admissions  of  the  validity  of  dipping 
into  so  many  positive  arguments  in  favor  of  the  exclusiveness 
of  immersion.  And  hence  sometimes  the  Baptist  preacher 
presents  in  the  pulpit  paedobaptist  works  and  pamphlets  as 
proofs  of  the  exclusiveness  of  immersion,  though,  as  we  have 
seen,  nothing  can  be  more  unfair  or  untrue.  It  were  well, 
on  all  such  occasions,  to  suspend  the  judgment  till  an  op- 
portunity be  afforded  to  settle  the  question  by  the  whole 
testimony  of  the  authors  in  question.  And  let  the  reader 
be  assured,  that  while  these  authors  admitted  the  validity 
of  immersion  as  a  mode  of  baptism,  they  made  a  clear  dis- 
crimination between  the  validity  of  a  mode,  and  the  ex- 
clusivencss of  immersion,  in  the  works  which  they  have 
written — works  full  of  strong  arguments  against  the  e* 
clusiveness  of  immersion,  and  in  favor  of  sprinkling  and 
pouring,  as  modes  more  expedient,  rational,  and  scriptural. 
They  proceeded  upon  the  ground,  that  a  mode,  and  the  onlj 
mode,  have  nothing  common  in  principle ;  they  never  ad 
mitted,  but  always  opposed,  the  exclusiveness  of  immersion. 

Eighthly.  All  the  evangelical  denominations  that  practise 
sprinkling  and  pouring  in  administering  the  initiating  sacra- 
ment of  the  Christian  dispensation,  have  been  crowned  with 
great  and  signal  success  in  publishing  the  gospel  among 
men.  But  if  there  had  been  any  thing  essential  in  the  mode 
of  the  initiating  sacrament  of  the  Christian  dispensation, 
such  would  not  have  been  their  success.  And  so  the  success 
of  the  Baptists,  at  home  and  abroad,  is  in  proof  that  the 
mode  of  initiating  into  the  Christian  church  which  they 
adopt  is  non-essential.  It  is  advisable  however,  that  the 
churches  send  paedobaptist  missionaries  to  the  polar  regions. 

It  may  be  observed  here  as  a  striking  fact,  that  revivals 
of  religion  rarely  commence  among  our  Baptist  brethren  at 
the  water's  edge,  or  at  the  communion  table ;  but  great  re~ 
vivals  have  commenced  among  other  denominations  at  the 

14 


158  THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


Lord's  table,  and  during  the  administration  of  baptism  in 
the  church — which  is  an  impressive  and  forcible  attestation 
of  the  divine  approval  of  these  institutions  as  means  of  grace. 
We  now  collect  all  these  proofs  together,  obtained  from  the 
plain  Scriptures;  the  inherent  meaning  of  pa-Ti*u)  in  its 
gospel  sense;  the  force  of  the  original  Greek  prepositions; 
the  harmonious  connection  of  the  external  mode  of  baptism 
with  the  mode  of  spiritual  baptism,  and  the  spirit  of  the 
plan  of  salvation;  and  from  collateral  sources; — and  we 
infer  from  them  all,  that  the  most  appropriate  mode  of  bap- 
tism is  sprinkling  or  pouring :  while  immersion  is  not  to  be 
excluded,  as  a  mode  equally  valid,  though  not  equally 
rational,  appropriate,  and  expressive,  as  pouring  and  sprin- 
kling. We  shall,  in  the  next  chapter,  consider  some  ob- 
jections usually  urged  by  the  Baptists  against  the  views 
maintained  in  this  part  of  the  work. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

OBJECTIONS   CONSIDERED. 


In  this  chapter,  we  shall  consider  the  prominent  argu- 
ments of  the  Baptists  in  favor  of  exclusive  immersion  as 
the  initiating  sacrament  of  the  church  under  the  Christian 
dispensation. 

First.  u  Baptism  is  a  positive  institution,  and  therefore 
should  be  rigidly  adhered  to.'7  Granted — but  where  is  im- 
mersion positively  enjoined  in  the  Scriptures  as  baptism  ? 
No  where.  The  law  of  baptism  refers  to  the  fact,  and  not 
to  the  mode  or  circumstances  of  the  mode,  of  baptism.  The 
spirit  of  the  law  of  baptism,  is  our  rule  of  duty,  while  the 
manner  of  obedience  is  not  determined  positively,  either  by 
precept  or  example.     Circumcision  was  a  positive  institution, 


OBJECTIONS   CONSIDERED.  159 


but  the  mode  of  administering  it  was  not  denned.  So  the 
Lord's  supper  is  a  positive  institution,  but  the  mode  of  re- 
ceiving it  is  nowhere  enjoined.  The  inference,  therefore, 
from  the  nature,  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  is  utterly  ground- 
less. Besides,  this  is  a  new  principle  of  duty,  originated  by 
the  Baptists,  in  order  to  escape  the  irresistible  force  of  moral 
or  inferential  reasoning  in  favor  of  other  modes  of  baptism ; 
and  it  is  a  principle  unsound  as  it  is  novel.  Circumstantial 
evidence  is  often  as  strong  and  clear  as  positive.  The  ne- 
cessity of  moral  duty  is  often  argued  by  inferential  reason- 
ing. And  hence,  as  the  mode  of  baptism  is  purely  inferen- 
tial, it  may  be  as  clearly  deduced  from  circumstantial  testi- 
mony as  if  it  were  specifically  and  positively  enjoined. 

Secondly.  "  Since  John  is  found  at  Jordan,  the  inference 
is  that  he  baptized  by  immersion. "  What — inference  re- 
specting a  positive  institution  !  It  is  an  absurdity  in  terms 
Positive  injunctions  leave  no  room  for  inference.  The  Bap- 
tists most  strenuously  and  scrupulously  demand  adherence 
to  the  original  form  of  positive  institutions.  Mr.  Booth,  in 
his  "  Psedobaptism  Examined,"  observes,  "  Compliance  must 
be  so,  and  no  more,  and  no  less,  and  no  otherwise.' }  This 
is  the  invariable  requisition  of  Baptist  principles,  and  Bap- 
tist ministers,  on  the  subject  of  baptism.  And  yet  obliga- 
tion is  here  founded  on  inference — that  is,  a  positive  institu- 
tion is  made  a  subject  of  inference.  But  granted.  And 
then,  upon  the  same  ground  of  deduction,  Saul  of  Tarsus, 
Cornelius,  the  jailer,  Lydia,  and  the  three  thousand  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  were  baptized  by  sprinkling  or  pouring. 
And  so  here  we  have  sprinkling  and  pouring  also  elemental 
in  the  positive  institution  of  baptism.  But  the  Baptists 
will  not  admit  the  force  of  inference  in  establishing  these 
modes  as  positive  institutions,  and  hence  they  must  abandon 
the  ground  on  which  they  determine  the  positive  character 
of  immersion  as  the  mode  of  baptism.     The  true  reason 


160  THE   MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 


doubtless  why  John  took  his  station  at  Jordan  was,  because 
of  the  multitudes  who  came  to  be  baptized,  as  we  shall  see 
from  the  following  considerations.  John  removed  from  his 
position  at  Jordan,  and  took  a  more  convenient  station  "  in 
Enon,  near  Salem,  because  there  was  much  water  there" — 
and  here  again  the  Baptists  straightway  conclude,  that  the 
sole  object  for  selecting  such  a  spot  was  immersion.  But 
this  is  not  assigned  as  the  reason  in  the  sacred  record;  for, 
on  this  account,  he  need  not  have  removed  his  station  from 
Jordan!1  The  term  translated  "much  water,"  in  the  ori- 
ginal is  plural — odaza  izolka,  liydata  polla — many  waters, 
many  streams  or  springs.  And  why  did  John  select  such 
a  place  as  this?  Obviously,  for  the  convenience  of  the 
multitudes  who  attended  on  his  ministry — to  obtain  water 
for  their  cattle,  for  themselves,  and  for  purposes  independent 
of  baptism.  And  thus,  independently  of  the  question  of 
immersion,  even  admitting  (which  we  do  not)  that  John 
baptized  by  immersion,  he  should  have  selected  the  place  he 
did,  or  some  place  like  it.  There  is  not  one  particle  of 
proof  that  the  purpose  was  immersion  only.  In  the  latitude 
of  Palestine  the  mercury  ranges  in  winter  from  40°  to  50°, 
and,  in  summer,  from  80°  to  100°;  and  in  the  plains  of 
Jordan,  much  higher.  Consequently,  at  a  season  of  the 
year  when  the  heat  of  a  tropical  sun  was  intense,  and  the 
people  and  their  beasts  would  be  exposed  to  great  incon- 
venience on  the  open  sandy  beach  of  Jordan,  and  especially 
John  himself  would  be  prostrated  in  the  performance  of  the 
arduous  labors  of  his  mission,  it  was  found  desirable  at  least. 


1  If  John  removed  from  Jordan  to  Enon  because  "  there  was  much 
water  there,"  that  is,  for  the  purpose  of  immersion,  then  there  was  more 
water  in  the  river  of  Jordan  than  at  Enon,  and  the  reason  given  for 
John's  removal  falls  to  the  ground.  Besides,  just  now  it  was  assnmed, 
that  because  ''John  was  found  at  Jordan,  the  inference  is,  that  he  bap- 
tized by  immersion" — then  why  does  he  leave  Jordan,  and  go  to  Enon? 


OBJECTIONS   CONSIDERED.  161 


most  probably,  necessary,  for  John  to  remove  to  some  salu- 
brious and  pleasant  station,  such  as  Enon,  farther  north, 
where  there  were  many  springs,  with  their  shade,  and  every 
convenience  that  John  could  desire  for  himself,  the  multi- 
tude, their  families,  their  servants,  and  their  beasts  of 
burden.  Besides,  the  water  at  Enon  was  better  than  that 
of  Jordan.  "The  water  of  Jordan  is  turbid  and  black,  and 
unfit  to  drink,  until  it  has  been  filtered,  or  stood  several 
hours  in  vessels  and  settled."  Jordan,  by  the  Greeks,  was 
called  ixeXaq,  black.  "I  observed  that  the  river  (Jordan) 
was  scarcely  half  full,  yet  the  water  was  somewhat  turbid." 
Dr.  Durbin's  Observations  in  the  East,  vol.  ii.  6.  "The 
shores  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  the  valley  to  the  north  of  it, 
consist  of  an  expanse  of  salt,  dry  mud,  and  moving  sand. 
In  proceeding  through  the  plain,  Chateaubriand  discovered 
what  at  first  appeared  to  be  sand  in  motion.  On  drawing 
nearer,  he  beheld  a  yellow  current,  scarcely  to  be  dis- 
tinguished from  the  sands  on  its  shores.  It  was  deeply 
sunk  below  its  banks,  slowly  creeping  toward  the  pesti- 
lential lake  by  which  it  is  engulfed.  This  v:as  the  Jordan." 
Murray's  Encyclopaedia  of  Geography,  vol.  ii.  255.  The 
object  of  John  therefore  in  removing  from  Jordan  to  Enon, 
was  to  obtain  an  adequate  supply  of  wholesome  water  for 
the  purposes  of  drinking,  cooking,  and  ceremonial  and  ordi- 
nary ablutions.  The  necessity  of  "much  water"  for  these 
purposes  is  obvious.  "Much  water"  was  required  by  the 
multitude  for  these  purposes.  In  a  word,  the  climate;  the 
quality,  as  well  as  quantity,  of  water  required  obviously  for 
other  purposes  than  those  of  baptism;  the  superior  con- 
veniences of  Enon  as  a  station;  and  the  fact,  that  there  was 
more  water  in  Jordan  than  at  Enon, — induce  the  belief,  that 
the  mode  of  baptism  did  not  enter  at  all  into  the  considera- 
tions that  caused  John  to  remove  his  station  from  Jordan 
to  Enon.     To  suppose  that  immersion  was  the  principal 

14* 


162  THE   MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 


object  in  view  is  a  mere  surmise  originating  in  the  imagina- 
tion, and  unsupported  by  a  particle  of  proof,  even  the  re- 
motest probability.  No  argument  can  be  drawn  from  the 
history  of  the  case  in  support  of  the  hypothesis  of  the  Bap- 
tists. But  the  necessity  for  much  water  being  admitted  on 
all  hands  as  existing  independently  of  the  mode  of  baptism, 
it  is  most  probable  that  John  baptized  by  sprinkling  or 
pouring — as  we  have  seen  in  the  preceding  part  of  this 
treatise.  The  multitudes  baptized;  the  distance  they  came 
to  be  baptized;  the  great  inconvenience  of  immersing  both 
men  and  women  in  their  apparel;  the  indecency  of  baptizing 
in  a  state  of  nudity;  the  probability  that  no  change  of 
raiment  was  brought  for  the  purpose  of  immersion;  and 
above  all,  the  brevity  of  John's  ministry — are  so  many  cir- 
cumstances that  render  it  morally  certain  that  John  baptized 
by  the  convenient  and  easy  mode  of  sprinkling  or  pouring. 

Thirdly.  "  Why  did  the  apostles  baptize  in  the  open  air, 
and  at  the  water's  edge,  where  was  much  water?"  The 
answer  applicable  in  the  preceding  case  is  equally  applicable 
here.  In  the  first  place,  in  the  beginning  of  Christianity, 
the  apostles  had  no  houses  in  which  to  preach  and  baptize; 
and,  therefore,  where  else  could  they  baptize  but  in  the  open 
air  ?  And  secondly,  because  of  the  vast  multitudes  crowd- 
ing every  day  to  their  ministry,  houses  however  large  would 
have  been  too  small  to  preach  in,  and  to  afford  conveniences 
for  the  administration  of  the  ordinances;  and  hence  they 
must  retire  to  the  open  air,  or  to  some  convenient  and  well- 
watered  parts  of  the  country.  If  as  great  numbers  attended 
the  Christian  ministry  in  the  present  day,  and  converts  were 
as  numerous  now  as  they  were  in  the  days  of  the  apostles, 
there  would  still  be  the  necessity  of  resorting  to  some  con- 
venient position  in  the  open  air  to  preach  the  gospel  and 
baptize  the  converts. 

Fourthly.   "  Where  reference  is  made  to  the  operation  of 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  163 


the  Holy  Spirit,  under  the  ideas  of  sprinkling  and  pouring, 
the  meaning  is  figurative."  Granted  :  and  then  immersion 
is  placed  farthest  from  the  design  of  the  figure.  Had  the 
Scriptures  read,  "  I  will  immerse  you  in  clean  water,"  doubt- 
less a  figurative  meaning  in  favor  of  immersion  would  have 
been  zealously  supported  by  the  Baptists.  But  there  is  no 
prophecy  or  promise  in  the  Bible  referring  to,  or  defining 
baptism,  by  immersion,  though  there  are  many  respecting 
sprinkling  and  pouring. 

Fifthly.  "  Immersion  is  set  forth  under  the  figure  of  a 
burial/'  Then  it  is  inferential,  and  hence  cannot  be  positive. 
Besides,  sprinkling  and  pouring  are  set  forth  under  the 
figures  of  spiritual  baptism  by  sprinkling  and  pouring  j  and 
consequently,  on  the  same  ground  that  the  Baptists  suppose 
immersion  consistent  and  proper,  they  should  admit  the  pro- 
priety and  validity  of  sprinkling  and  pouring.  But  there 
is  no  allusion  whatever  in  this  passage  of  Scripture  to  any 
mode  of  baptism.  It  refers  to  the  spiritual  nature  and 
obligation  of  Christian  baptism.  ' 

(1.)  It  is  a  plain  antithesis.  "  We  are  buried  with  him," 
is  the  first  part ;  "  even  so  we  should  walk  in  newness  of 
life,"  is  the  second  part.  "Newness  of  life,"  which  every 
Christian  actually  experiences  in  this  life,  is  evidently 
spiritual;  consequently  "  buried  with  Christ"  is  also  spiri- 
tual; and  to  understand  this  phrase  as  a  literal  burial  under 
water,  is,  therefore,  to  give  it  a  meaning  which  the  laws  of 
exegesis  positively  forbid;  for  there  is  no  resemblance  be- 
tween a  spiritual  burial  unto  sin  and  a  literal  immersion  in 
water.  Give  this  passage  a  spiritual  meaning,  and  there  is 
a  propriety  in  baptism  by  water,  and  a  coincidence  between 
formal  and  spiritual  baptism;  give  it  a  literal  meaning,  and 
there  is  neither  propriety  nor  coincidence  in  the  case.  The 
ritual  services  of  the  Jewish  dispensation  were  typical  of 
moral    purification,   and    not  of   death    or    interment,   and 


164  THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


analogy  under  the  Christian  dispensation  is  preserved  by 
investing  baptism  with  a  spiritual  and  not  a  literal  sig- 
nification. 

(2.)  Upon  the  hypothesis  of  the  Baptists,  there  is  no 
appropriateness  whatever  in  baptism.  None  in  representing 
the  spiritual  character  of  the  subject  of  baptism.  Baptism 
is  an  emblem  of  moral  purity,  or  regeneration  by  the  Holy 
Spirit:  it  signifies  spiritual  life  in  the  subject,  and  not 
natural  decomposition,  putrefaction,  loathsomeness,  and 
death.  None  in  representing  Christ's  interment.  The 
body  of  the  blessed  Saviour  was  laid  in  a  stone  cell,  above- 
ground,  and  not  in  a  tomb  sunk  in  the  earth.  Hence,  in 
the  passage  before  us,  there  is  no  reference  whatever  to  the 
mode  of  baptism. 

(3.)  Upon  the  hypothesis  of  the  Baptists,  the  passage 
before  us  proves  too  much,  and  hence  fails  altogether.  In 
the  next  verse  it  is  said:  "We  have  been  planted  together 
in  the  likeness  of  his  death."  Planting  with  Christ  is 
spiritual,  and  this  every  believer  actually  experiences.  That 
is,  as  the  seed  sown  in  the  ground  derives  from  the  ground 
all  its  nourishment  and  fruitfulness,  so  the  believer  derives 
from  the  vicarious  death  of  Christ  all  his  spiritual  life  and 
fruitfulness.  It  is  evident,  no  external  mode  of  baptism 
whatever  can  illustrate  the  nature  or  manner  of  this  spiritual 
derivation.  If  the  "lateness  of  Christ's  death"  is  to  be 
illustrated  literally  by  baptism,  then  immersion  or  plunging 
cannot  do  it,  for  Christ  died  on  the  cross,  and  so  the  hy- 
pothesis of  the  Baptists  implies  too  much.  But  if  the 
"likeness  of  Christ's  death"  is  to  be  illustrated  spiritually 
by  baptism,  then  all  external  mode  whatever  is  out  of  the 
question.  "  Planted  in  the  likeness  of  his  death"  signifies 
a  participation  of  the  spiritual  blessings  of  Christ's  death, 
and,  in  the  nature  of  things,  no  mode  whatever  can  be  an 
appropriate  emblem  of  this  participation :  the  fact,  not  the 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  165 

mode f  of  the  participation,  is  all  that  is  or  can  be  signified 
in  baptism.  The  mode  of  baptism  can  no  more  represent 
the  moral  or  spiritual  burial  of  the  believer,  or  his  participa- 
tion cf  the  spiritual  blessings  of  the  vicarious  death  of  Christ, 
than  it  can  represent  the  sacrificial  quality  of  Christ's  death. 
These  are  great  facts  which  have  no  analogies  of  a  sensible 
nature  in  the  universe.  Besides,  (in  ver.  6,)  we  are  said  to 
be  "crucified  with  Christ"  by  baptism,  which  evidently  is 
spiritual  also,  and,  in  the  nature  of  things,  this  spiritual 
crucifixion  cannot  be  represented  by  any  sensible  analogies 
in  the  universe.  Indeed,  even  admitting  that  the  passage 
before  us  is  to  be  literally  interpreted,  there  is  no  resem- 
blance between  plunging  into  the  water,  and  the  nailing  of 
a  body  to  the  cross.  And  thus,  though  the  spiritual  mean- 
ing of  the  passage  be  omitted  altogether,  it  proves  too  much 
for  the  Baptists,  and  so  entirely  fails.  JSTor  is  this  all.  It 
proves  too  much  in  another  respect.  In  one  instance,  bap- 
tism is  made  to  represent  the  death  of  Christ,  in  another  his 
crucifixion,  in  another  his  burial,  and  in  another,  "being 
planted  with  him."  Thus,  the  unity  of  the  figure  is  de- 
stroyed; for  how  can  the  mode  of  baptism  represent  all 
these  circumstances  or  events  which  are  essentially  dis- 
similar? especially  in  the  case  of  immersion,  which  in  fact 
resembles  not  one  of  these  events?  Christ's  crucifixion  was 
literal — immersion  does  not  resemble  that:  Christ's  death 
was  literal — immersion  does  not  resemble  that:  Christ's 
burial  was  literal — immersion  does  not  resemble  that: 
Christ's  resurrection  was  literal — immersion  does  not  re- 
semble that,  for  who  can  tell  how  Christ's  body  was  revived? 
Besides,  the  believer  rises  spiritually  from  a  state  of  moral 
death.  If  immersion  resembles  the  raising  and  nailing  of 
a  body  to  a  cross,  how  can  it  resemble  the  taking  down  and 
burial  of  a  body  in  the  grave — acts  entirely  dissimilar? 
And  so  we  repeat,  the  interpretation  the  Baptists  give  the 


166  THE    MODE   OE   BAPTISM. 


passage  under  consideration  proves  too  much,  and  so  fails 
altogether. 

(4.)  If  baptism  represents  Christ's  burial  literally,  then 
the  person  baptized  must  remain  under  the  water  till  the 
third  day,  for  Christ  lay  in  the  tomb  till  the  third  day; 
and  then  the  Baptists  are  to  keep  the  persons  they  immerse 
three  days  under  the  water;  and  in  this  case,  natural  death 
must  be  the  result,  or  the  analogy  fails. 

(5.)  And  so  the  parallel  passage,  in  Gal.  iii.  27,  "As 
many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on 
Christ,"  is  to  be  interpreted  literally.  And  then  every 
person  when  baptized  must  put  off  and  put  on  his  apparel, 
and  so  be  baptized  naked !  Indeed,  this  was  the  construc- 
tion given  to  this  passage  by  certain  literalists  in  former 
days,  and  so  they  baptized  in  a  state  of  perfect  nudity,  both 
males  and  females.  They  read  " buried  by  baptism,"  and 
so  commenced  plunging ;  they  read  "put  on  Christ,"  and  so 
they  baptized  naked;  they  read  "in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  so  they  adopted 
trine  immersion,  or  plunging  three  times :  such  are  the  gross 
absurdities  of  a  literal  interpretation  of  the  three  phrases  be- 
fore us — two  of  which  absurdities  the  modern  Baptists  have 
abolished,  but  the  first  of  which  they  still  retain,  and  which 
unfortunately  is  one  of  their  distinguishing  characteristics 
as  a  Christian  denomination. 

(6.)  "Buried  into  death" — what,  death  after  burial! 
Crucified  after  death !  Burial  cannot  be  properly  applied 
to  a  living  man;  if  so,  we  must  bury  the  subject  pro- 
spectively, and  consequently  use  the  "burial  service,"  in- 
stead of  the  baptismal  form,  whenever  we  baptize. 

(7.)  If  immersion  is  set  forth  under  the  idea  of  a  burial, 
then  uburied  by  baptism  into  death,"  means  buried  into 
death  by  death — which  is  a  perfect  absurdity;  and  "buried 
with  him  in  baptism,"  means  buried  by  a  grave  into  a  grave 


OBJECTIONS   CONSIDERED.  167 


— which  is  nonsense;  and  "  baptized  into  Moses" — as  it  may 

be  translated — means  buried  into  Moses — which  is  revolting 
in  the  extreme;  and  "baptized into  Christ/'  means  buried  into 
Christ — which  is  the  most  shocking  blasphemy  and  profanity. 

(8.)  Some  nations  burn,  embalm,  and  deposit  their  dead 
in  vaults,  or  hang  up  the  body  till  the  flesh  decays,  which 
immersion  could  never  set  forth  to  them.  The  gospel  is  to 
be  preached  to  all  nations,  as  a  universal  blessing;  and  it  is 
evident  that  immersion  could  not  in  the  same  manner  set 
forth  the  idea  of  spiritual  death  to  those  nations  who  burn, 
embalm,  and  hang  up  their  dead.2 

(9.)  The  case  of  Jonah  was  a  sign  of  Christ's  burial 
and  resurrection,  and  Christ  himself  declares  that  no  other 
sign  should  be  given  in  addition  to  this  sign.  It  is  im- 
possible that  Christ's  ordinance  should  contradict  his  words, 
when  he  knew  that  every  day  his  disciples  by  baptizing  did 
typically  set  forth  his  burial  and  resurrection. 

(10.)  Why  did  Christ's  disciples  wonder  "what  the  rising 
from  the  dead  should  mean,"  if  they  understood  the  mean- 


2  Mr.  Robert  Robinson,  the  Baptist  historian,  in  bis  "  History  of  Bap- 
tism," sustains  this  objection.  "The  first  English  Baptists,"  says  he, 
"  when  they  read  the  phrase,  buried  in  baptism,  instantly  thought  of  an 
English,  burial,  and  therefore  baptized  by  laying  the  body  in  the  form  of 
burying  in  their  own  country;  but  they  might  have  observed  that  Paul 
wrote  to  the  Romans,  and  the  Romans  did  not  bury,  but  burned  their 
dead  and  buried  nothing  but  their  ashes  in  urns;  so  that  no  fair  reason- 
ing on  the  form  of  baptizing  can  be  drawn  from  the  mode  of  burying  the 
dead,  in  England."  In  like  manner  it  was  a  custom  of  the  ancient  Mexi- 
cans to  burn  their  dead.  "  On  the  death  of  a  person,  his  corpse  was 
dressed  in  the  peculiar  habiliments  of  his  tutelar  deity.  It  was  strewed 
with  pieces  of  paper,  which  operated  as  charms  against  the  dangers  of 
the  dark  road  he  was  to  travel.  His  body  was  burned,  and  the  ashes, 
collected  in  a  vase,  were  preserved  in  one  of  the  apartments  of  his  house. 
Here  we  have  successively  the  usages  of  the  Roman  Catholics,  the  Mussul- 
man, the  Tartar,  and  the  ancient  Greek  and  Roman."  Preseott'a  Ce>? 
'quest  of  Mexico,  vol.  i.  63,  64. 


I6S  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


fng  of  the  baptism  which  they  administered  every  day  tt 
refer  to  his  resurrection? 

(11.)  Indeed,  after  all,  if  the  mode  of  baptism  is  set 
forth  by  a  burial,  then  in  baptizing,  as  in  burying,  the  water 
should  be  poured  or  sprinkled  on  the  subject  till  he  be 
covered  with  the  water. 

(12.)  The  fact  is,  our  Baptist  brethren  can  find  no  mean- 
ing in  immersion  unless  they  can  make  it  refer  to  the  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  to  which  it  has  no  re- 
ference, since  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper  has  been 
expressly  instituted  by  Christ  himself  "to  show  forth  his 
death  till  he  come;"  and  neither  men  nor  angels  have  any 
right  to  "add"  another  sacrament  to  show  forth  this  great 
event,  or  to  give  another  meaning  to  either  of  the  sacra- 
ments not  sustained  by  the  Scriptures. 

These  considerations  compel  us  to  reject  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Baptists,  and  we  proceed  to  give  the  true  import 
of  the  text. 

Baptism  is  a  federal  act,  and  once  administered,  is  in 
force  during  life.  Thus,  the  apostle  uses  the  past  tenses  with 
a  present  signification,  and  this  is  in  harmony  with  the 
genius  of  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  languages.  Thus,  in  the 
Hebrew:  "The  earth  is  full  of  violence,"  *.  e.  the  earth  has 
been  filled  with  violence.  Gen.  vi.  13  :  "I  delight  to  do  thy 
will,  0  my  God,"  *.  e.  "  I  have  delighted  to  do  thy  will,"  &c. 
Ps.  xl.  8.  Here  the  past  tense  indicates  a  state  which,  be- 
ginning at  some  former  period,  still  continues  to  exist  at 
the  time  of  narration.  So  in  the  Greek.  The  past  tenses  are 
often  used  with  a  present  signification,  *.  e.  indicating  a  con- 
tinued action,  as  ffuverdyrq/jbev.  Thus,  we  "are  buried,"  &c, 
i.  e  have  been  buried,  &c,  signifies  that,  having  once 
assumed  the  solemn  obligations  implied  in  baptism,  they 
continue  in  force  through  life.  Consequently,  if  the  burial 
referred  to  in  the  passage  under  consideration  is  literal,  the 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  1G9 


Baptists  are  bound  to  keep  their  converts  under  water  during 
life — a  conclusion  certainly  not  in  harmony  with  the  im- 
port of  baptism.  The  design  of  the  apostle  is  to  illustrate 
by  baptism  the  character  and  obligations  of  the  believer. 
"How  shall  we  that  are  dead  to  sin  live  any  longer  therein  1" 
i.  e.  how  shall  we,  who  are  separated  from  sin,  have  any 
thing  more  to  do  with  it  ? — a  phraseology  common  among 
the  Hebrews,  Greeks,  and  Latins.  Thus,  "Nihil  mecum 
tibi,  mortuus  tibi  sum."  Plautus.  /  have  nothing  to  do 
with  thee;  lam  dead  to  thee.  Tldvyza  Irioi,  I  am  DEAD  to 
thee.  Libanius.  The  essential  character  of  the  believer  im- 
plies, that  having  renounced  sin,  and  been  redeemed  from 
the  guilt  and  power  of  it,  he  is  to  refrain  from  the  practice 
of  it  through  life.  Obligation  to  do  so  is  next  enforced  by 
reference  to  the  import  of  baptism.  "Know  ye  not,  that  so 
many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized 
into  his  death  ?"  That  is,  by  baptism  we  are  formally  con- 
secrated to  Christ,  formally  recognised  as  participating  in 
the  blessings  of  his  death,  and  formally  laid  under  obligation 
to  conform  to  the  doctrines  essentially  connected  with  his 
death,  to  die  unto  sin,  as  he  died  for  sin.  By  baptism,  we 
are  recognised  as  sustaining  a  moral  and  spiritual  relation 
to  the  death  of  Christ,  which  is  essentially  inconsistent  with 
sin.  Nor  is  this  all.  Obligation  to  walk  in  newness  of  life 
is  also  imposed  by  baptism.  "Therefore  we  are  buried  with 
him  by  baptism  into  death;  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised 
up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we 
also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life :"  a  new  life,  holy  and 
spiritual; — life,  death  to  sin; — life,  during  all  life; — life, 
in  a  word,  conformable  to  the  obligations  imposed  upon  man 
by  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ.  These  great  facts  are  sig- 
nified by  baptism,  and  that  is  enough.  This  interpretation 
is  intelligible,  and  is  consistent  with  the  remainder  of  the 

chapter  and  the  whole  plan  of  salvation — an  interpretation 

U 


170  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


to  which  allusion  to  any  mode  of  baptism  could  impart  no 
additional  force  or  propriety.  The  substance,  and  not  the 
mode  of  baptism,  is  all  that  is  required  for  the  argument  of 
the  apostle,  and  is  all  he  employs.  The  Baptists  neglect 
the  substance,  and  suppose  a  mode  which,  if  admitted,  de- 
stroys the  appropriateness  and  force  of  the  apostle's  reasoning. 
In  a  word,  the  true  meaning  of  this  celebrated  passage  is, 
Baptism  ritually  unites  to  Christ,  and  sets  forth  a  profession 
of  religion  founded  upon  his  death,  the  subject  being  hereby 
typically  washed  from  his  former  sins  and  pollutions,  that 
he  may  afterward  "  walk  in  newness  of  life."  Old  things 
are  done  away,  all  things  are  become  new.  The  old  man  is 
dead;  old  connections,  old  practices,  old  principles,  old 
names,  old  dispositions,  are  no  more ;  and  the  young  believer 
testifies  to  the  world  that  he  is  dead  to  the  world,  and  "alive 
in  Christ  Jesus;"  and  that  he  will  no  longer  "walk  after 
the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit;"  that  he  has  formed  new  con- 
nections, adopted  new  practices,  embraced  new  principles, 
possesses  a  new  nature,  and  in  future  is  to  be  known  under 
a  new  name  among  men :  and  thus,  his  baptism  sets  forth  a 
profession  of  Christ.  Profession  of  Christ  may  be  made  by 
any  mode,  and  that  is  the  most  proper  mode  which  test 
represents  the  manner  of  spiritual  baptism,  which,  os  wa 
have  seen,  is  frequently  set  forth  under  the  ideas  of  spril 
kling  and  pouring.  The  new  birth  is  effected  by  faith, 
proved  by  "newness  of  life,"  and  set  forth  by  profession 
under  any  form  agreeable  to  the  subject — but  not  under  the 
idea  of  a  burial,  since  no  mode  could  represent  a  spiritual 
burial  but  a  real  burial  of  the  body,  which  is  impossible. 
And  so  we  conclude  that  the  apostle  had  no  reference  to 
the  mode  of  baptism,  but  simply  and  alone  to  the  solemn 
consecration  and  obligations  involved  in  baptism.  A  mo- 
ment's reflection  must  convince  the  reader,  not  only  of  the 
inconsistency,  but  the  unfairness  of  the  Baptists.     At  one 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  171 


time,  they  urge  upon  young  converts,  that  "they  must 
follow  their  Lord  and  Master  down  into  the  water/ '  and  at 
another  time,  they  impose  upon  them  the  hard  task  of  follow- 
ing Christ  down  "into  death."  At  one  time,  they  insist 
upon  following  the  example  of  Christ  in  baptism;  and  at 
another  time,  enjoin  the  duty  of  being  "planted  in  the  like- 
ness of  his  death."  "What  then  was  the  mode  of  Christ's 
death?  Why,  crucifixion.  And  what  is  the  likeness 
between  immersion  and  crucifixion?  None  whatever. 
And  young  converts  must  follow  Christ  down  into  the  water  ^ 
and  up  to  the  cross,  while  in  the  former  case  it  has  been 
demonstrated  that  Christ  was  not  immersed,  and  in  the 
latter  case,  it  is  impossible  to  follow  his  example.  The 
error  of  the  Baptists  is,  that  they  confound  the  mode  with 
the  import  of  baptism ;  and  hence  they  lay  more  stress  upon 
the  mode  than  the  import;  while  indeed  the  import,  which 
is  the  principal  thing  in  baptism,  may  be  set  forth  by  one 
mode  as  well  as  another. 

Sixthly.  "Obligation  to  be  immersed  is  based  on  the 
example  of  Christ."  So  far  from  admitting  that  obligation 
to  be  immersed  rests  upon  the  example  of  Christ,  we  do  not 
admit  that  the  obligation  to  be  baptized  rests  upon  his  ex- 
ample. And  thus,  whether  Christ  was  baptized  by  immer- 
sion or  not,  his  example,  in  this  sense,  is  not  binding  on  us. 
Christ's  baptism  does  not  enter  in  any  respect  into  the 
question  of  Christian  baptism.  The  obligation  of  Christian 
baptism  rests  solely  upon  the  commission  of  Christ  to  his 
apostles  after  his  resurrection.  "  G-o  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Before  we  can  acknowledge  the 
obligation  to  be  immersed  from  the  example  of  Christ,  two 
things  at  least  must  be  proved :  first,  that  Christ  was  im- 
mersed; and  secondly,  that  he  enjoined  his  example  in  this 
respect  as  binding  on  us. 


THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 


It  is  required  to  be  proved,  that  Christ  was  immersed  at 
his  baptism.  This  cannot  be  done  :  indeed,  the  contrary  is 
deduciblc  from  the  whole  force  of  inference  already  con- 
sidered, and  will  appear  the  more  probable  from  other  con- 
siderations now  to  be  presented.  We  offer  the  following 
considerations  to  prove,  first,  that  Christ  was  not  immersed ; 
and  secondly,  that  his  baptism  was  not  received  as  an  ex 
ample  for  any  one,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile. 

(1.)  John,  who  baptized  Christ,  did  not  abolish  the  rites 
of  the  Jewish  dispensation.  The  Jewish  dispensation  con- 
tinued till  the  death  of  Christ :  His  shout  on  the  Cross,  "  It 
is  finished,"  re~  J  the  vail  of  the  temple  from  top  to  bottom, 
and  consummated  the  Jewish  economy.  Christ  lived  and 
died  under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  and  all  that  he  did  pre 
viously  to  his  death  was  in  conformity  to  this  dispensation. 
Indeed,  there  could  not  be  in  force  among  men  two  dispensa- 
tions at  the  same  time,  and  the  Christian  dispensation  was 
not  opened  till  after  the  death  of  Christ.  Besides,  it  is  evi- 
dent, the  appointment  of  ordinances  was  a  part  of  Christ's 
ministry,  and  consequently  Christian  baptism  could  not 
properly  be  instituted  before  Christ  was  inducted  into  his 
ministry,  and  consummated  his  divine  mission  in  his  death. 
In  other  words,  a  gospel  ordinance  could  not  be  in  force 
before  the  introduction  of  the  gospel  dispensation.  Up  to 
this  time  the  Mosaic  dispensation  was  in  full  force.  Hence, 
John's  baptism  was  not  a  Christian  sacrament.3 

(2.)  Tohn  opened  his  dispensation  some  time  before  he 
knew  Christ.  "  The  next  day  John  seeth  Jesus  coming  unto 
him,  and  saith,  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world.  This  is  be  of  whom  I  said,  After 
me  cometh  a  man  who  is  preferred  before  me,  for  he  was 

3  "No  rite  celebrated  during  the  ministry  of  John,  is  entitled  to  a  place 
among  Christian  sacraments."  Hobert  Hall's  "Works,  vol.  i.  372..  Robei 
Hall  is  high  authority  among  the  Baptists. 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  173 


before  me:  and  I  knew  him  not:  but  that  he  should  bo 
made  manifest  unto  Israel,  therefore  am  I  come  baptizing 
with  water."  Therefore  John's  dispensation  preceded  the 
Christian  dispensation,  since  the  latter  was  not  introduced 
till  after  the  death  of  Christ.  John  opened  his  dispensa- 
tion and  baptized  at  least  six  months  before  Christ  com- 
menced his  public  ministry.  And  consequently  John's 
baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism;  so  that,  whether  he 
baptized  Christ  by  immersion  or  not,  is  of  no  importance 
in  settling  the  mode  of  Christian  baptism. 

(3.)  John's  baptism  was  preparatory  to  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation.4 As  the  Jews  not  only  circumcised,  but  also 
baptized  proselytes,  signifying  by  baptism  the  impurity  and 
uncleanness  of  the  heathen  world;  so  baptism  was  ad- 
ministered by  John  to  the  Jews,  in  order  to  set  forth  the 
spirituality  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  that  when  the 
Jewish  dispensation,  with  its  initiating  ordinance,  circum- 
cision, should  be  abolished,  they  might  not  be  unaccustomed 
to  baptism,  the  initiating  sacrament  of  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation. In  this  sense,  John's  baptism  was  wise,  as  well 
as  preparatory :  "  that  he  (Christ)  should  be  made  manifest 
unto  Israel,  therefore  am  I  come  baptizing  with  water." 
Now  a  rite,  that  was  applicable  to  the  Jews  only  as  pre- 
paratory, could  not  be  applicable  to  Christ,  nor  be  an  ex- 
ample to  Christians ;  and  hence  Jesus  was  not  baptized  ac- 
cording to  John's  baptism,  nor  as  an  example  to  Christians. 

(4.)  John  ascribes  his  commission  to  the  Father,  and  not 
to  Christ.  "And  John  bare  record,  saying,  I  saw  the 
Spirit  descending  from  heaven  like  a  dove,  and  it  abode 
upon  him:  but  he  that  sent  me  to  baptize  with  water,  the 
same  said  unto  me,  Upon  whom  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit 

4  And  this  A.  Campbell  concedes:  "John's  baptism  was  not  Christ's 
baptism.  It  was  a  preparatory  institution."  Christian  Baptism,  "printed 
and  published"  by  himself,  Bethany,  Va.,  1851,  p.  219. 

15* 


174  THE    MODE    OV    BAPTISM. 


descending  and  remaining  on  him,  the  same  is  he  whir 
baptizeth  with  the  Holy  G-host."     Thus,  John's  baptism 
was  not  an  institution  adopted  by  John,  but  enjoined  by 
tne  Father,  preparatory  to  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit.5 

(5.)  The  form  of  John's  baptism  was  different  fr^m  that 
of  Christian  baptism.  The  form  that  John  used  is  expressed 
by  Paul :  "  Then  said  Paul,  John  verily  baptized  with  the 
baptism  of  repentance,  saying,  unco  the  people,  that  they 
should  believe  on  him  who  should  come  after  him,  that  is,  on 
Christ  Jesus."6  This  was  the  form  of  John's  baptism. 
Besides,  some  of  the  disciples  of  John  had  not  heard 
"whether  there  be  any  Holy  Grhost."  So  that  so  far  as  the 
names  of  two  of  the  persons  of  the  blessed  Trinity  are  indis- 
pensable to  the  form  of  Christian  baptism,  John's  baptism 
was  defective.  But  from  all  these  considerations,  even  ad- 
mitting that  Christ  was  baptized  according  to  John's  bap- 
tism— which  we  do  not — then  Christ's  baptism  was  not 
Christian  baptism,  and  hence  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  an 
example  for  Christians.     But  we  go  one  step  farther. 

(6.)  Christ's  baptism,  in  every  material  point,  was  not 
John's  baptism.  John's  baptism  was  "unto  repentance;" 
but  Christ  was  infinitely  holy,  and  hence  could  not  repent. 
John's  baptism  imposed  faith  in  Christ  "to  come;"  Christ 
could  not  believe  in  his  own  name.  Neither  was  Christ's 
baptism  Christian  baptism.  Christian  baptism  required 
"teaching;"  but  Christ  was  infinitely  wise,  and  could  not 
be  taught  any  thing.     Christian  baptism  required  faith  in 


6  Here  we  may  answer  a  popular  objection.  "If  John's  baptism  was 
administered  under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  whj  Vaptize  at  all,  since 
circumcision  was  the  appointed  initiatory  rite  of  the  Jewish  dispensa- 
tion?" God,  the  Father,  thought  proper  to  add  the  rite  of  baptism,  that 
when,  on  the  death  of  Christ,  circumcision  should  be  abolished,  it  might 
be  received  as  the  initiating  sacrament  of  the  Christian  dispensation. 

6  Acts  xix.  4. 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  ]"5 


Chris' ;  \  ut  Christ  being  the  object  of  fu.th,  could  not  believe 
in  his  own  name.  Christian  baptism  was  administered  in 
the  name  of  the  Trinity;  but  Christ  being  one  of  the  persons 
of  the  Trinity,  could  not  be  baptized  in  his  own  ^ame. 
Christian  baptism  was  not  instituted  till  after  the  death  of 
Christ;  but  Christ  was  baptized  before  his  death.  The 
import  of  baptism,  both  as  a  sign  and  seal,  was  wholly  in- 
applicable to  Christ.  As  a  sign,  it  signifieth  inward  wash- 
ing and  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  presupposes 
the  defilement  of  sin.  As  a  seal,  it  is  the  pledge  of  our 
fidelity  to  God,  and  of  God's  fidelity  to  us.  In  none  of 
these  respects,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  could  baptism 
be  applicable  to  Christ.  As  therefore  all  the  circumstances 
of  Christ's  baptism  prove  that  his  baptism  was  neither  John's, 
nor  Christian  baptism,  it  is  conclusive  that  it  should  not 
be  regarded  as  an  example  for  Christians;  and  it  remains  for 
us  to  inquire,  what  was  the  character  of  his  baptism. 

(7.)  It  was  a  formal  and  solemn  inauguration  intc 
the  high -priest's  office  under  the  Christian  dispensation 
"And  John  forbad  him,  saying,  I  have  need  to  be  baptized 
of  thee,  and  comest  thou  to  me?  And  Jesus  answering 
said  unto  him,  Suffer  it  to  be  so  now :  for  thus  it  becometh 
us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness." 7  What  did  he  mean  ?  Ob- 
serve, John  did  not  abolish  Jewish  rites.  Christ  had 
already  been  initiated  into  the  Jewish  church  by  circum- 
cision, which  was  the  initiating  ordinance  of  the  Mosaic 
dispensation,  and  thus,  in  this  respect,  he  had  fulfilled  the 
righteousness  of  the  Jewish  dispensation.  He  had  remained, 
afte~  this  event,  "in  the  obscurity  of  private  life,"  till  he 
was  thirty  years  of  age,  the  period  required  by  the  Jewish 
law  Defore  induction  into  the  high-priest's  office.  And  now 
he  comes  to  John  to  fulfil  the  righteousness  of  the  Jewish 

7  Matt.  iii.  14,  15. 


176  'HIE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM, 

law  in  this  respect  also.  How  then  wa«  £»  high-priest 
initiated  into  office  under  the  Jewish  dispensation?  By 
referring  to  Ex.  xxix.  4,  7,  and  Lev.  viii.  6,  10,  11,  12,  A 
will  be  seen  that  the  outward  form  was  washing  and  anoint- 
ing. Thus,  as  the  high-priest  was  initiated  into  office  "by 
washing  and  anointing,  so  must  Christ,  in  order  to  fulfil  a'V 
righteousness,  and  to  enter  upon  the  great  work  of  atone- 
ment for  mankind.  As  to  the  mode  of  the  washing  referred 
to,  that  is  not  defined  in  the  book  of  the  ceremonial  law; 
but  common  sense  suggests  that  this  ceremonial  washing 
was  performed  by  the  application  of  water  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling,  rather  than  the  total  submersion  of  the  subject. 
And  we  may  conclude  that  John  administered  baptism  to 
Jesus  by  sprinkling  or  pouring,  when  the  holy  anointing  of 
the  Spirit  immediately  completed  his  initiation  into  the 
office  of  High-Priest  of  the  Christian  dispensation.  That 
this  baptism  was  a  formal  initiation  into  the  high -priest's 
office,  appears  conclusive  from  Christ's  appeal  to  John's 
baptism  in  vindication  of  his  authority  for  purging  the  tem- 
ple. "The  bajitisin  of  John,  whence  was  it?  from  heaven, 
or  from  men?"  Had  they  replied,  "From  neaven,"  he 
would  have  silenced  their  compaints  at  once  by  answering, 
"You  believe  John  then  had  a  divine  commission  as  the 
prophet  of  God — he  consecrated  me  to  the  priestly  office  by 
baptism — and  by  virtue  of  my  priestly  office,  I  do  these 
things."  Robert  Hall,  who  is  great  authority  among  the 
Baptists,  entertains  the  view  we  have  given  of  Christ's  bap- 
tism. "He  was  inaugurated  into  his  office  at  his  baptism, 
till  which  period  he  remained  in  the  obscurity  of  private 
life."  8  He  declares,  on  same  page,  as  already  quoted,  that 
"no  rite  celebrated  during  the  ministry  of  John,  is  entitled 
to  a  place  among  Christian  sacraments."     Hence,  according 

»  Robert  Hall's  Works,  vol.  i.  372. 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  17V 


to  Robert  Hall,  Christ  was  initiated  into  the  high-priest's 
office  according  to  the  Jewish  dispensation.  Now  as  John 
did  not  abolish  Jewish  rites,  and  consequently  as  he  initiated 
Christ  into  the  priestly  office  according  to  the  requisitions 
of  the  Jewish  economy,  of  course  when  Christ  himself,  by  his 
death,  consummated  and  abolished  the  Jewish  dispensation, 
he  also  abolished  the  ceremonies  contained  in  his  own  bap- 
tism, and  therefore  his  baptism  can  never  be  regarded  as  an 
example  for  the  Christian  church  in  all  succeeding  ages. 
The  circumstances  of  his  baptism  can  never  occur  again  in 
fulfilling  the  ceremonial  law.  Had  Christ's  baptism,  how- 
ever, been  Christian  baptism,  it  might  then  be  regarded  in 
the  light  of  an  example. 

Those  who  feel  under  obligation  to  follow  Christ  in  his 
baptism,  ought  also  to  teach  and  submit  to  circumcision — to 
delay  baptism  till  the  thirtieth  year  of  age — keep  the  passover 
— fast  forty  days  and  forty  nights  after  baptism — wash  the 
disciples'  feet — keep  the  seventh-day  Sabbath  as  under  the 
Jewish  dispensation — and  then,  if  Christ's  baptism  was 
John's  baptism,  and  not  a  Jewish  ordinance  of  initiation 
into  the  priestly  office,  they  ought  to  be  rebaptized  accord- 
ing to  the  form  of  the  initiating  ordinance  of  the  Christian 
dispensation,  as  Christ's  apostles  did  baptize  eertain  of 
John's  disciples.  From  all  that  we  have  said,  it  is  evident, 
that  Christ's  baptism  was  neither  John's  nor  Christian  bap- 
tism; and  consequently  Christ's  baptism  was  not  an  ex- 
ample to  the  Jews  under  John's  dispensation,  nor  to  Chris- 
tians under  the  Christian  dispensation.  Even  admitting — 
which  we  do  not — that  Christ  was  baptized  according  to 
John's  baptism,  then  his  baptism  cannot  be  regarded  as  an 
example  for  us — for  certain  of  John's  disciples,  as  first  ob- 
served, were  rebaptized  under  the  Christian  dispensation. 

That  certain  of  John's  disciples  were  rebaptized  under 
the  Christian  dispensation,  is  evident  from  the  19th  chapter 


178  THE    MODE    01'    BAPTISM. 


of  Acts :  "  And  he  said  unto  them,  unto  what  then  were  ye 
baptized  ?  And  they  said,  Unto  John's  baptism.  Then  said 
Paul,  John  verily  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  repentance, 
jaying  unto  the  people,  that  they  should  believe  on  him  who 
should  come  after  him;  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus.  When 
they  heard  this,  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus."  Mr.  Carson  admits  that  these  disciples  of  John 
were  rebaptized.  His  language  is:  "I  know  this  is  dis- 
puted ;  but  for  my  part,  I  never  doubted  it.  I  cannot  see 
how  this  can  be  denied  without  torturing  the  word  of  God." 
(P.  372.)  Nay,  further,  admitting — which  we  do  not — that 
Christ  was  baptized  according  to  John's  dispensation  by  im- 
mersion, even  then  the  defective  character  of  John's  dis- 
pensation, the  mere  mode  by  which  its  ordinances  were 
administered,  could  not  supersede  the  necessity  of  rebaptism 
under  the  Christian  dispensation.  In  a  word,  when  it  is 
considered  that  Christ  was  not  baptized  according  to  John's 
baptism;  and  that,  consequently,  his  baptism  was  not  an 
example  to  the  Jews  under  John's  dispensation;  that  he  was 
not  baptized  according  to  Christian  baptism,  and  that  his 
baptism  is  consequently  not  an  example  to  Christians;  that 
his  baptism  had  reference  solely  to  his  initiation  into  the 
priestly  office;  and  that  it  is  morally  certain  he  was  bap- 
tized by  sprinkling  or  pouring, — all  hope  of  support  in  favor 
of  immersion,  from  this  quarter,  must  be  for  ever  abandoned 
by  the  Baptists. 

We  wish  to  prove,  further,  that  Christ's  baptism  was  never 
designed  by  him  to  be  an  example  either  to  Jew  or  Gentile. 

John's  dispensation,  as  we  have  said,  was  preparatory 
to  the  Christian  dispensation;  and  consequently  some  of 
Christ's  apostles  rebaptized  certain  of  John's  disciples. 
Therefore,  as  Christ  was  baptized  under  John's  dispensation, 
if  he  was  baptized  according  to  John's  baptism,  he  should 
have  been  baptized  again  under  the  Christian  dispensation, 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  179 


u  order  to  be  an  example  to  us.  But  as  Christ's  baptism 
was  not  an  example  to  the  Jews  under  Jonn's  baptism, 
since,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  he  was  baptized  after  all  the 
people  had  been  baptized;  so  his  baptism  cannot  be  an  ex- 
ample to  us,  since  he  was  not  rebaptized  under  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation.  That  his  baptism  cannot  be  regarded  as 
an  example  to  the  Jews  under  John's  baptism,  is  fully  evi- 
dent from  a  single  consideration.  Our  Baptist  friends  seem 
to  forget  that  Christ's  baptism  was  administered  too  late  to 
entitle  it  to  the  character  of  an  example.  Luke  says,  that 
"when  all  the  people  icere  baptized,  it  came  to  pass  that 
Jesus  also,  being  baptized,"  &c.9  And  so  the  other  evangel- 
ists say  that  the  baptism  of  the  people  preceded  the  baptism 
of  Christ.  Why  was  not  Christ  baptized  in  early  life  ?  In- 
deed, why  was  he  not  the  first  to  be  baptized  by  John,  that 
his  baptism  might  have  all  the  force  of  an  example,  under 
John's  dispensation  ?  And  hence,  since  Christ's  baptism 
*'as  deferred  till  the  last,  we  conclude  that  ids  baptism  was 
not  designed  to  be  an  example  to  the  Jews..  &nd  lest  some 
scrupulous  mind  should  doubt  the  truth  of  th?s  interpretation 
of  Luke  and  the  other  evangelists,  we  inviie  uctention  to  the 
opinion  of  Robert  Robinson,  in  his  History  of  Baptism 
p.  34 :  "  When  John  began  to  baptize  at  Beuhabara  beyond 
Jordan,  his  first  baptismal  station,  Jesus  resided  at  Nazareth 
in  Galilee,  and  he  did  not  arrive  at  Bethabara  till  all  the 
people  had  been  baptized."  Mr.  Robinson  refers  to  Luke 
iii.  21.  Indeed  the  whole  question  of  antecedence  is  settled 
by  the  fact,  admitted  on  all  hands,  that  John  baptized  with 
a  view  of  Christ  "to  come"  which  could  not  have  been  true, 
if  Christ  had  previously  entered  upon  his  ministry  by  ini- 
tiation at  his  baptism.  All  the  people  hau  been  baptized, 
and  consequently  were  in  waiting  for  nim  wh.en  he  came, 


9  Luke  i;i   21. 


180 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


and  must  have  remembered  the  declaration  of  John,  "This 
is  he  of  whom  I  said,  he  that  cometh  after  me  is  preferred 
before  me."  Thus,  Christ's  baptism  was  not  an  example  to 
the  Jews  under  John's  dispensation. 

Nor  was  Christ's  baptism  designed  to  be  an  example  under 
the  Christian  dispensation.  In  addition  to  what  has  been 
said  already,  we  invite  the  reader's  careful  attention  to  the 
following  considerations.  Example  does  not  bind  merely 
as  example.  There  is  no  force  in  example  itself,  as  for 
instance,  the  mediatorial,  the  peculiar  acts  of  Christ.  There 
must  be  some  explicit  rule  to  determine  what  examples  bind, 
and  what  do  not,  or  else  we  can  never  know  ichich  to  follow. 
It  is,  therefore,  some  explicit  law  that  makes  example  bind- 
ing; and  consequently,  in  the  absence  of  explicit  law,  no 
example  can  be  made  binding  on  the  consciences  of  men. 
We  are  bound  to  follow  Christ's  example,  not  simply  because 
he  did  this  or  that,  but  because  he  has  expressly  enjoined  the 
same  things  on  as.  And  hence,  though  Christ  was  im- 
mersed— and  we  do  not  believe  he  was — his  example  cannot 
be  made  binding  without  positive,  explicit  law  on  the  subject 
— of  ichich  we  find  no  record  in  the  Bible.  On  the  other 
hand,  in  the  absence  of  explicit  law  concerning  any  example, 
we  are  to  be  governed  by  the  morality  of  the  example,  and 
not  by  the  example  itself.  If  the  morality  of  an  action  or 
example  can  be  shown  by  any  other  action,  the  law  of  God 
is  fully  met,  and  our  obligations  are  discharged  in  that  case. 
Thus,  it  is  binding  on  all  to  do  good,  but  the  actions  by 
which  men  do  good  are  not  specified  and  enjoined,  for  actions 
absolutely  different  in  themselves  may  possess  the  same 
moral  quality.  So  the  moral  quality  of  actions  not  specified, 
be  shown,  it  is  immaterial  what  the  action  is  which  may  be 
adopted,  provided  it  be  consistent  with  truth,  purity,  and 
order.  Thus,  it  is  binding  on  all  to  be  baptized,  and  the 
moral  quality  of  baptism  may  be  shown  as  well  by  one  mode 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  181 


as  by  another.  It  is  admitted,  if  the  action  itself  possess  a 
moral  quality,  then  it  is  binding.  Has  immersion,  pouring, 
or  sprinkling,  in  any  respect,  a  moral  quality  inherent? 
No :  and  hence,  neither  of  them  is  binding  in  view  of  its 
moral  quality,  since  the  mode  of  baptism  is  nowhere  specific- 
ally defined  and  positively  enjoined  in  the  Bible.  Immer- 
sion is  made  binding  neither  by  any  inherent  moral  quality 
nor  by  positive  divine  law;  and  so  with  sprinkling  and 
pouring.  We  will  illustrate  this  view  by  two  examples  from 
the  Scriptures.  The  first  is  given  in  the  13th  chapter  of 
the  Gospel  by  John.  Christ  washes  the  disciples  feet.  "  I 
have  given  you,"  says  Christ,  "  an  example,  that  you  should 
do  as  I  have  done."  The  moral  lesson  he  teaches  is  hu- 
mility, for  humility  is  the  moral  quality  of  the  action — and 
never  was  this  exalted  grace  of  the  Christian  character  pre- 
sented in  a  more  impressive  form.  But  surely  Christ  did 
not  mean  that  we  should  adopt  his  action  in  this  case, 
although  it  is  definitely  stated  that  "  he  arose  from  supper 
and  laid  aside  his  garments,  and  took  a  towel  and  girded 
himself.  And  after  that  he  poured  water  into  a  basin  and 
began  to  wash  the  disciples  feet,  and  to  wipe  them  with 
the  towel  wherewith  he  was  girded."  Here  all  the  circum- 
stances are  minutely  mentioned;  and  yet  none  of  them 
specifically  enjoined  as  our  example — only  the  moral  quality 
of  the  circumstances  is  made  binding  on  the  Christian  church, 
and  especially  on  the  ministers  of  Christ. 

The  other  case  is  given  by  Peter,  in  his  first  epistle  and 
second  chapter.  He  wished  to  enforce  the  submission  of 
servants  to  their  masters,  "  when  they  do  well,  and  suffer  for 
it" — "because  Christ  also  suffered  for  us,  leaving  us  an  ex- 
ample, that  ye  should  follow  in  his  steps."10     Here  the 

10  This  passage  of  Scripture  is  often  quoted  by  the  Baptists  in  defence 
of  immersion.  What  has  immersion  to  do  with  the  meekness  and  gen- 
tleness of  the  Christian  character  enjoined  by  Peter? 

16 


182  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


meekness  and  gentleness  of  Christ's  character  are  presented 
as  an  example.  But  it  is  impossible  for  men  or  angels  to 
show  forth  gentleness  and  meekness  by  u  following  the  steps" 
of  Christ's  sacrificial  suffering  while  on  earth.  He  has  left 
us  an  example,  not  of  action,  but  of  moral  quality — and  this 
moral  quality  may  be  expressed  under  a  thousand  forms  in 
all  the  ages  of  time.  The  same  view  may  be  taken  of  bap- 
tism. Its  moral  quality  is  all  that  is  essential,  which  may 
oe  expressed  by  any  mode,  according  to  the  judgment  of  the 
subject.  Once  more  :  unity  is  an  essential  feature  of  the 
Christian  church.  No  matter  how  modes  of  administering 
the  sacraments  may  vary,  so  the  same  moral  quality  is  ex- 
pressed. It  is  the  moral  quality  of  actions  that  secures  the 
unity  of  the  church,  no  mattter  how  various  may  be  its 
branches.  The  moral  quality  of  baptism,  and  not  the  mode, 
entitles  the  whole  church  of  Christ  to  the  most  intimate  and 
holy  communion.  Besides,  we  are  to  follow  the  example  of 
Christ  only  in  obeying  the  laws  of  morality  and  piety,  and 
not  in  keeping  and  fulfilling  ceremonial  ordinances.  More- 
over, the  confounding  John's  with  Christian  baptism  is  an 
error  of  no  small  moment.  Paul  censured  the  Hebrews 
severely  for  blending  Judaism  with  Christianity ;  and  the 
error  of  our  Baptist  brethren,  in  identifying  John's  with 
Christian  baptism,  is  no  less  worthy  of  condemnation.  On 
the  whole,  we  conclude  that  no  obligation  can  be  imposed 
on  the  Christian  church  upon  the  ground  of  Christ's  bap- 
tism, whether  it  respects  the  fact  or  the  mode  of  his  baptism. 
Obligation  to  be  baptized,  under  the  Christian  dispensation, 
we  repeat,  rests  upon  the  great  commission  of  Christ  to  his 
apostles,  given  after  his  death  and  resurrection,  "Gro  and 
teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them,"  &c,  and  upon  the  prac- 
tice of  the  apostles  themselves,  who  went  forth  to  fulfil 
their  commission. 


OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED.  183 


Seventhly.  "  Immersion  at  the  hands  of  an  administrator 
who  has  not  been  immersed,  is  not  valid  baptism." 

This  objection  is  founded  upon  an  assumption  analogous 
to  the  exploded  dogma  of  apostolic  succession  among  the 
Episcopalians.  The  chain  of  succession  in  both  cases — if 
any  ever  existed — is  broken  into  a  thousand  fragments,  and 
the  links  lie  scattered  irrecoverably  among  the  promiscuous 
ruins  of  time ;  and  hence  both  assumptions  are  to  be  re- 
garded as  utterly  destitute  of  any  consideration  in  settling 
the  questions  of  episcopal  ordination  and  the  validity  of 
clerical  administrations.  The  whole  weight  of  the  objection 
entertained  by  the  Baptists  themselves  against  the  tenet  of 
episcopal  succession,  lies  against  their  claims  to  exclusive- 
ness  in  the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  as  a  moment's 
consideration  shall  establish. 

Upon  a  careful  examination  of  all  authoritative  church 
history,  it  will  be  found  that  opposition  to  infant  baptism 
commenced  about  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century,  among 
a  people  "  few,  ignorant,  and  easily  converted."  The  credi- 
bility of  the  authorities  we  shall  adduce  on  this  subject,  has 
never  been  questioned  by  the  Baptists  themselves.  The 
origin  of  the  Baptist  Church  is  thus  described  by  Wall :  "I 
take  this  Peter  Bruis  and  Henry  to  be  the  first  anti-paedo- 
baptist  preachers  that  ever  set  up  a  church  or  society  of  men 
holding  that  opinion  against  infant  baptism,  and  rebaptizing 
such  as  had  been  baptized  in  infancy.  They  were  both 
Frenchmen.  Peter  had  had  a  church  or  parish,  but  was 
turned  out  of  it  for  some  misdemeanor.  Henry  had  been  a 
monk,  and  had  deserted  the  monastery.  Peter  began  to 
preach  in  1126,  and  about  the  year  1144  was  taken  and 
burnt.  As  for  Henry,  after  he  had  gone  about  preaching 
in  many  cities  and  provinces  in  France,  whence  he  soon  fled, 
and  lying  hid  for  some  time,  was  taken  and  delivered  to  the 
bishop,  (the  Bishop  of  Ostia,  I  suppose,)  but  what  was  done 


"i34  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 


with  him  is  not  said."11  "No  sooner  had  the  Reformation, 
begun  by  Luther,  anno  1517,  taken  good  footing  in  Saxony 
and  some  other  parts  of  Germany,  but  that  within  some  five 
or  six  years  there  arose  a  certain  sort  of  men  that  pretended 
to  refine  upon  him.  One  Nicodemus  Storck,  and  Thomas 
Munzer,  seconded  within  a  while  by  one  Hobmeir,  preached 
that  the  baptism  of  infants  was  also  an  abuse  that  must  be 
reformed;  and  they  baptized  over  again  such  as  became 
their  disciples.  They  also  added  other  things ;  that  it  was 
not  fit,  nor  to  be  endured  in  the  kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ, 
that  some  should  be  so  rich,  and  some  so  poor.  Abundance 
of  people  flocked  to  them.  Munzer  called  himself  the  sword 
of  the  Lord,  and  of  Gideon.  Luther  and  the  Protestants 
entered  their  protestation  against  their  proceedings,  as 
bringing  a  scandal  on  the  new  begun  Reformation ;  but  they 
went  on,  and  after  some  time  (great  numbers  of  disorderly 
people  joining  with  them)  became  masterless,  made  a  sort 
of  army,  and  committed  great  ravages  on  the  estates  of  rich 
men,  where  they  marched.  And  at  last,  anno  1534,  a  strong 
party  of  this  sort  of  men,  coming  mostly  from  Holland, 
seized  on  the  city  of  Munster,  where  one  John  Becold,  called 
John  of  Leyden,  being  advanced  to  be  their  king,  they  pre- 
tended to  prophecy  and  revelation ;  and  did,  under  the  name 
of  Christ's  kingdom,  practise  several  tyrannies  and  enormities, 
as  polygamy,12  plundering,  &c.  Some  regular  forces  being 
brought  against  them,  they  were  subdued,  and  the  king,  and 
some  heads  of  them  being  put  to  death,  the  rest  were  dis- 
persed into  several  parts  of  Germany.13    That  which  is  more 


11  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  vol.  ii.  273-277. 

12  "As  a  demonstration  of  the  soundness  of  his  faith  in  this  Christian 
liberty,  Boecold,  the  successor  of  Matthias,  took  unto  himself  fourteen 
wives,  one  of  whom  was  the  widow  of  his  predecessor,  a  woman  of  singu 
lar  beauty."     Robertson's  Charles  V.  p.  54. 

u  See  also  Goodrich's  History,  and  Ruter'e  Church  History. 


OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED.  185 


material  to  the  history  of  infant  baptism,  is  to  inquire 
whether  this  Storck,  Munzer,  Hobmeir,  <£c.  did  at  that 
time,  viz.  anno  1522,  set  up  this  thing  new,  or  newly  re- 
ceived, or  whether  it  had  been  continued  and  handed  down 
by  some  dispersed  people,  from  the  time  of  the  Petrobrus- 
sians  to  this  time.  If  there  were  any  continuation  of  the 
doctrine  for  the  said  two  or  three  hundred  years,  it  must 
have  been  very  obscure,  and  by  a  very  few  men,  because 
there  is  in  all  that  interval  no  mention  of  them  in  any  good 
author.  Menno  succeeded,  a  countryman  of  Friezeland,  a 
man  of  a  sober  and  a  quiet  temper ;  he  held  the  doctrine  of 
antipaedobaptism,  disclaimed  against  the  seditious  doctrines 
and  practices  of  those  at  Munster,  and  of  Batenburg;  and 
taught  that  the  kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  they  had 
pretended  to  set  up  by  external  force,  consisted  in  patience, 
and  meekness,  and  suffering  quietly,  if  occasion  should  be. 
One  Theodoric  succeeded  Menno  in  this  doctrine.  The  fol- 
lowers of  Menno,  to  this  day,  generally  call  themselves 
Mennonites,  or  by  abbreviation,  Minnists.  One  thing  Cas- 
sander  says  of  Menno  that  is  particular,  viz.  :  '  Some  of 
these  men  (followers  of  Menno)  had  first  endeavored  to  fix 
the  origin  of  infant  baptism  upon  some  pope  of  Rome : 
Menno  had  more  sense.  He  was  forced  to  own  that  it  had 
been  in  use  from  the  apostles'  times.  But  he  said  that  the 
false  apostles  were  the  authors  of  it/  As  for  the  present 
state  of  the  Minnists,  a  late  writer  of  those  parts,  an  extract 
of  whose  book  is  given  by  Mr.  Boval,  says,  'Except  Hol- 
land, where  they  live  peaceably,  they  are  almost  extinct/ 

"In  England  there  were  now  and  then  some  Dutchmen 
found  of  the  antipaedobaptist  opinion  ever  since  the  time  it  ha.^ 
taken  footing  in  Holland ;  but  more  of  the  English  nation 
are  known  to  have  embraced  it  in  a  long  time  after.  In  the 
beginning  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  reign,  as  there  icere  no  English 
antipeedobaptists,  so  there  were  very  few  left  in  Holland 


186  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 


At  what  time  it  "began  to  be  embraced  by  any  English  I  do 
not  find  it  easy  to  discover.  But  it  is  plain  that  no  very 
considerable  number  in  England  were  of  this  persuasion  till 
about  sixty  years  ago.  Any  very  ancient  man  may  remem- 
ber when  there  was  no  Englishmen,  or  at  least  no  society 
or  church  of  them,  of  that  persuasion.  Their  eldest  churches 
are  not  yet  of  the  age  of  man,  viz.  seventy  years.  I  mean 
the  ancient  men  or  men  of  reading  among  them  know  this ; 
the  young  and  the  vulgar,  who  will  talk  right  or  wrong  for 
a  side,  do  not  own  it;  but  the  others  own,  and  they  justify 
it  by  pleading  that  their  opinion  is  the  truest."  u 

The  Baptists  of  the  present  day  do  not  like  to  be  reminded 
of  these  men  as  their  predecessors.  But  if  these  men  were 
not  their  predecessors  they  have  none,  for  they  have  never 
produced  any  other.  Such  is  the  history  of  the  origin  of 
the  Baptist  Church  in  Europe.  We  shall  refer  more  at 
length  to  the  origin  of  the  Baptist  Church  in  our  examina- 
tion of  the  rise  and  progress  of  opposition  to  infant  baptism, 
in  the  latter  part  of  this  work. 

The  origin  of  the  first  Baptist  church  in  England  is  thus 
described  by  Mr.  Backus,  a  Baptist,  and  historian  of  the 
Baptist  church  in  New  England: — "A  number  of  people 
near  the  borders  of  the  counties  of  York,  Nottingham,  and 
Lincoln,  were  so  much  convinced  of  the  corruptions  of  the 
Church  of  England,  that  they  withdrew  from  her  in  1602, 
and  formed  another  church,  in  which  they  covenanted  to- 
gether to  walk  in  all  the  ordinances  and  commandments  of 
God,  according  to  the  light  he  had  given,  or  should  give 
them  out  of  his  holy  word." 15  This  the  author  calls  the 
first  Baptist  church  formed  in  England,  and  his  account 
nearly  coincides  with  the  statement  of  "Wall.     Mr.  Bene- 

14  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  vol.  ii.  292-294,  300,  301,  302,  306, 
313,  315,  317,  325,  557-55S.     First  published  in  1705. 

15  Backus's  Church  Hist,  of  N.  England,  e.  i.  19. 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  187 


diet's  history  of  the  origin  of  the  first  Baptist  church  in 
England  is  not  only  more  comprehensive  than  that  of  Mr. 
Backus,  but  contains  a  refutation  of  the  assumption  we  are 
considering.  "  John  Smyth/'  says  he,  "  a  clergyman  of  the 
established  church,  went  over  to  Holland  in  the  beginning  of 
the  reign  of  James  I.  In  his  examinations  of  the  Scriptures 
he  soon  perceived  that  neither  infant  baptism  nor  sprinkling 
had  any  foundation  in  them.  He  icas  soon  cast  out  of  the 
church.  In  a  short  time  several  were  converted  to  his  senti- 
ments, and  their  numbers  increasing  rapidly,  he  formed  them 
into  a  distinct  church.  This  appears  to  have  been  the 
first  Baptist  church  composed  of  Englishmen,  after  the 
Reformation.  It  was  formed  about  1607  or  1608.  It  seems 
that  Mr.  Smyth  and  his  friends  were  put  to  some  difficulty 
in  reviving  the  practice  of  immersion.  He  and  all  his 
disciples  had  been  sprinkled  in  infanct  ;  and  there- 
fore, according  to  their  views,  were  unbaptized.  "What 
method  he  took  is  not  very  clearly  stated.  It  is  most  pro- 
bable that  those  who  were  convinced  of  the  duty  of  be- 
liever's baptism,  first  formed  themselves  into  a  church,  and 
then  appointed  tico  of  their  number  TO  baptize  each  other, 
and  afterward  to  baptize  the  rest."  And  Mr.  Benedict  adds, 
"  A  similar  difficulty  occurred  in  the  formation  of  the  original 
Baptist  church  in  America  by  Roger  Williams,  who  had 
recourse  to  the  same  expedient;  and  we  shall  find,  in  the 
sequel  of  this  history,  that  the  good  men  of  Leicestershire, 
in  the  middle  of  the  last  century,  when  placed  in  similar 
circumstances,  adopted  the  same  method."  Benedict's 
Hist,  of  the  Baptists,  pp.  327-330.  It  is  now  generally 
known  and  admitted  that  Roger  Williams  was  the  founder 
of  the  first  Baptist  church  in  America.  The  testimony  is 
abundant.  "Being  settled  in  this  place,  which,  from  the 
kindness  of  God  to  them,  they  called  Providence,  Mr. 
VTilliams,  and  those  with  him,  considered  the  importance 


188  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


of  gospel  union,  and  were  desirous  of  forming  themselves 
into  a  church,  but  met  with  considerable  obstruction.  They 
were  convinced  of  the  nature  and  design  of  believer's  bap- 
tism by  immersion,  but,  from  a  variety  of  circumstances,  had 
hitherto  been  prevented  from  submission.  To  obtain  a 
suitable  administrator  was  a  matter  of  consequence.  At 
length,  the  candidates  for  communion  nominated  and  ap- 
pointed Ezekiel  Holliman,  a  man  of  gifts  and  piety,  to  bap- 
tize Mr.  Williams,  and  who  in  return  baptized  Mr.  Holliman 
and  the  other  ten."  16  The  same  author,  in  a  revised  and 
enlarged  edition  of  his  work,  published  in  1848,  concerning 
the  same  transaction,  observes:  "In  1639,  he  (Roger 
Williams)  was  baptized  by  Ezekiel  Holliman,  a  layman 
who  was  appointed  by  the  little  company  for  the  purpose. 
Then  he  baptized  the  rest  of  the  company,  and  thus  laid  the 
foundation  for  the  first  Baptist  church  in  Providence,  and 
on  the  American  continent.  Some  of  our  writers  have 
taken  no  little  pains  to  apologize  for  this  unusual  transac- 
tion, but  in  my  opinion,  it  was  just  such  a  course  as 

ALL  COMPANIES  OF  BELIEVERS  WHO  WISH  TO  FORM  A 
CHURCH  IN  SUCH  EXTRAORDINARY  CIRCUMSTANCES  SHOULD 

pursue."  And  he  adds,  "  it  would  be  difficult  at  this  day 
to  make  a  complete  list  of  the  Baptist  communities  which 
have  sprung  from  this  ancient  and  prolific  mother."  Pages 
441,  442,  450,  459.  This  occurred  in  the  year  1639,  as  is 
evident  from  the  statement  of  the  Baptist  historians  whom 
we  have  already  quoted,  and  to  whom  we  now  again  refer  in 
the  following  extracts. 

"  Mr.  Williams  had  been  accused  before  of  embracing 
principles  which  tended  to  anabaptism;  and  in  March, 
1639,  he  was  baptized  by  one  of  his  brethren,  and  then  he 
baptized    about   ten    more.     But  in  July  following,    such 

16  Benedict's  History  of  the  Baptists,  vol.  i.  475 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  189 


scruples  were  raised  in  his  mind  about  it,  that  he  refrained 
from  such  administrations  among  them.  Mr.  Williams  dis- 
covers in  his  writings,  that  as  sacrifices  and  other  acts  of 
worship  were  omitted  by  the  people  of  God,  while  his  temple 
lay  in  ruins;  and  that  they  were  restored  again  by  im- 
mediate direction  from  heaven,  so  that  some  such  direction 
was  necessary  to  restore  the  ordinances  of  baptism,  and  the 
supper,  since  the  desolation  of  the  church  in  mystical 
Babylon.  But  these  cases  are  far  from  being  parallel;  for 
the  altar  of  God,  in  one  place  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  was  the 
only  place  where  acceptable  sacrifices  could  then  be  offered; 
while  the  Christian  church  is  not  confined  to  any  place,  but 
Christ  is  with  his  saints  wherever  they  meet  in  his  name; 
and  he  says  to  his  ministers,  Go  ye,  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them,  &c,  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  world.  And  these  promises  being  only 
unto  the  children  of  God,  in  the  way  of  observing  all  his 
commandments,  let  them  be  ordained  by  whom  they  may. 
As  the  priests  who  could  not  find  a  register  of  their  lawful 
descent  from  Aaron  were  put  from  the  priesthood;  so  those 
who  are  born  again  are  the  only  priesthood  whom  Christ 
owns  under  the  gospel." 17  Such  a  baptism  Mr.  Williams 
himself  considered  worthless  and  invalid,  and  hence  u  re- 
frained  from   such    administrations"   among  his  brethren, 

THEREBY  INVALIDATING  THE  WHOLE  SUCCESSION  OF  IM- 
MERSIONISTS  FROM  HIM  IN  THIS  COUNTRY. 

That  Mr.  Williams  regarded  his  baptism  by  Holliman 
invalid,  is  evident  from  other  testimony.  "Mr.  Williams 
and  many  of  his  company,  a  few  months  since,  were  in  all 
haste  rebaptized,  and  denied  communion  with  all  others; 
and  now  he  has  come  to  question  his  second  baptism,  not 
being  able  to  derive  the  authority  for  it  from  the  apostles, 

17  Backus's  Church  Hist.  New  England,  c.  iii.  50,  51.  Norton's  Hist  of 
New  England;  published  in  1669.    Also,  Winthrop's  Journal. 


190  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 


otherwise  than  by  the  ministers  of  England,  (whom  he 
judged  to  be  ill  authority,)  so  as  he  conceived  God  would 
raise  some  apostolic  power.' '  Says  Scott  of  Roger  Williams, 
"I  walked  with  him  in  the  Baptist  way,  about  three  or  four 
months,  in  which  time  he  broke  from  the  society,  and  de- 
clared at  large  the  grounds  and  reasons  of  it,  that  their 
baptism  could  not  be  right,  because  it  was  not  ad- 
ministered by  an  apostle." 18  Thus,  in  March  1639,  Roger 
Williams  is  rebaptized  by  a  layman;  in  July  of  the  same 
year,  according  to  Backus,  and  in  "three  or  four  months" 
after,  according  to  Scott,  he  becomes  dissatisfied  with  his 
second  baptism,  and  breaks  from  the  society,  because  his 
baptism  "  was  not  administered  by  an  apostle."  Mr.  Backus; 
however,  opposes  the  views  and  course  adopted  by  Roger 
Williams  subsequently  to  his  rebaptism,  and  makes  a  strong 
but  fruitless  effort  to  establish  its  validity.  He  makes  a 
rule,  unsupported  by  reason,  Scripture,  or  the  practice  of 
the  church,  by  which  he  wishes  to  establish  the  exclusive 
authority  of  the  Baptist  ministry  to  administer  the  sacra- 
ments of  Christianity.  The  rule  is  this :  "  The  promises  of 
God  belong  only  to  his  children,  in  the  way  of  obeying  all 
his  commandments,  let  them  be  ordained  by  whom  they 
may."  But  who  baptized  Roger  Williams  ?  Why,  Deacon 
Holliman,  a  layman,  baptized  by  sprinkling,  in  infancy. 
And  in  order  to  indicate  the  authority  of  this  layman  to  bap- 
tize, Mr.  Backus  observes :  u  Those  who  are  born  again  are 
the  only  priesthood  whom  Christ  owns  under  the  gospel." 
But  being  born  again,  is  not  a  sufficient  ground  of  authority 
to  "ordain"  and  baptize.  It  is  an  indispensable  prerequisite 
to  the  validity  of  baptism,  that  the  administrator  be  called, 

18  Winthrop's  Journal.  Knowles's  Memoir  of  R.  "Williams,  pp.  170, 
171,  as  quoted  in  a  small  tract  entitled,  "An  Inquiry  into  the  Antiquity 
of  the  Baptist  Church.  By  Geo.  W.  Langhornc,  of  the  Virginia  Con- 
ference,"— a  masterly  refutation  of  the  objection  we  are  considering. 


OBJECTION g    CONSIDERED.  191 


and  sent,  by  the  Holy  G-host,  to  preach  the  gospel.  "Go 
ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  my  gospel  to  every  creature, 
baptizing  them,  &e."  And  Mr.  Backus  himself  refers  to  this 
great  commission  as  the  divine  authority  of  the  minister  of 
Christ  to  administer  the  sacraments.  But  Ezekiel  Holliman 
was  a  layman,  and  consequently  under  no  circumstances, 
was  he  a  proper  person  to  administer  the  sacrament  of  bap- 
tism.19 Roger  "Williams  had  sense  enough  to  discover  this 
flaw  in  his  rebaptism,  and  so  repudiated  it  altogether,  and 
dissolved  his  connection  with  the  church  erected  upon  so 
spurious  a  foundation.  Here,  then,  in  the  first  place,  the 
Srst  administrator  of  baptism  is  a  layman.  Nor  is  this  all : 
this  administrator  was  baptized  by  sprinkling.  Nor  is  this 
all :  he  was  baptized  in  infancy.  Nor  is  this  all :  Mr. 
Williams  himself  subsequently  acknowledged  his  mistake  in 
the  whole  matter,  and  withdrew  from  the  society  of  Holli- 
man. Nor  is  this  all:  Mr.  Backus  observes,  "that  he 
(Wrilliams)  was  introduced  into  the  ministry  in  the  Church 
of  England,  but  he  soon  fonnd  that  he  could  not  in  con- 
science conform  to  many  things  in  their  worship,  and  there- 
fore came  over  to  this  country,  and  arrived  at  Boston,  in 
February,  in  1631 :" 20  so  the  Baptist  church  in  this  country 
primarily  originated  in  the  Church  of  England !  Nor  is  this 
all :  where  was  the  Baptist  Church  for  sixteen  hundred  and 
thirty-nine  years?  Professor  Knowles  declares,  that  Roger 
Williams  "founded  the  first  Baptist  church  in  America,  and 


19  In  no  circumstances  of  necessity  can  a  layman  assume  authority  to 
administer  the  sacraments.  The  only  proper  administrator  is  the  man 
who  is  called  of  God  to  preach  the  gospel;  and  if  there  be  no  proper  au- 
thority in  the  church  to  ordain  him  to  the  offices  of  his  holy  calling,  he 
may  proceed  de  novo,  to  administer  the  sacraments,  and  do  all  the  work 
of  the  ministry.  Ezekiel  Holliman  was  not  so  called,  and  consequently 
Roger  Williams's  rebaptism  was  radically  defective. 

20  Hist.  Church  New  England,  p.  35. 


192  THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


the  second,  as  it  is  stated,  in  the  British  Empire."21  Con- 
sequently there  was  no  Baptist  church  in  America,  or  in 
the  British  Empire,  before  these  churches  were  founded ! 

The  history  of  Roger  Williams,  as  the  founder  of  the 
Baptist  Church  in  America,  involves  the  Baptist  Church  in 
inextricable  perplexity,  because,  at  a  single  stroke,  it  over- 
throws ab  origine  the  Baptist  Church,  and  invalidates  all  the 
subsequent  administrations  of  the  Baptist  clergy,  whether  of 
ordination,  baptism,  the  eucharist,  preaching,  or  any  other 
service,  constitutionally  or  conventionally  connected  with  the 
office  of  the  properly  authenticated  minister  of  Christ.  We 
have  seen  the  fruitless  effort  of  Mr.  Backus  to  prevent  these 
disastrous  consequences.  Mr.  Broaddus,  an  eminent  Bap- 
tist minister  of  Virginia,  in  his  reply  to  "Slicer  on  Bap- 
tism," also  attempts  to  destroy  the  force  of  this  deduction. 
But  he  is  more  unfortunate  than  Mr.  Backus,  for  he  admits 
that  all  psedobaptist  ministers  are  qualified  to  administer 
the  sacraments.  " I  grant,  sir,"  says  he,  "that  if  a  man 
had  not  been  immersed,  he  may  immerse  others,  and  his 
neglect  of  his  own  duty,  may  not  disqualify  him  from  assist- 
ing in  discharge  of  others."  Therefore,  Slicer  replies, 
"  Elder  Broaddus  being  judge,  all  pasdobaptist  ministers 
are  qualified  to  give  the  ordinance  by  immersion."  Though 
immersion  were  in  truth  the  only  valid  mode  of  baptism — 
though  all  we  have  said  of  other  modes  of  baptism  were  con- 
trary to  reason  and  the  Scriptures — though  the  Baptist 
ministry  were  descended  from  the  apostles  by  an  unbroken 
and  consecutive  chain  of  immersionists — though  the  whole 
history  of  the  recent  origin  of  the  Baptist  Church  in  Europe 
and  America  were  utterly  false — and  though  infant  baptism, 
sprinkling,  and  pouring,  were  innovations  made  by  the 
predobaptist  church — yet,  according  to  Mr.  Broaddus,  im- 

21  Memoir  of  Williams,  p.  165. 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  193 


mcrsion  at  the  hands  of  a  paedobaptist  minister  is  valid  bap- 
tism. And  thus,  the  objection,  "  Immersion  at  the  hands 
of  an  administrator,  who  has  not  been  immersed,  is  not  valid 
baptism,"  is  refuted  by  the  history  and  concessions  of  the 
Baptist  Church.  The  history  of  Koger  Williams  is  a  stand- 
ing refutation  of  the  bold  assumption  of  the  Baptist  Church 
in  our  country  to  exclusive  right  to  administer  the  sacra- 
ments of  Christianity.  He  pretended  to  no  commission 
directly  from  heaven  to  baptize  by  immersion.  He  wrought 
no  miracle  to  establish  his  claims.  So  far  from  it,  he  re- 
gards his  rebaptism  at  the  hands  of  Holliman  invalid, 
"  because  it  was  not  administered  by  an  apostle."  Boger 
Williams  was  neither  an  apostle,  nor  baptized  by  an  apostle, 
but  by  a  layman,  and  he  even  repudiated  the  ministration 
of  this  layman.  Nor  did  he  assume  the  right  to  do  the 
work  of  the  ministry  de  novo — had  he  done  so,  even  then 
the  whole  question  of  the  exclusive  validity  of  immersion 
were  open  for  discussion. 

The  "  Missouri  Baptist"  is  not  more  successful  than  Mr. 
Backus  and  Mr.  Broaddus  in  meeting  this  difficulty.  "  Under 
other  circumstances  they  would  gladly  have  availed  them- 
selves of  a  regular  administrator  of  the  ordinance ;  but  situ- 
ated as  they  were,  they  naturally  and  wisely  concluded  that 
he  who  requireth  this  service  will  not  annex  conditions  in- 
compatible with  their  obedience,  and,  of  course,  will  accept 
of  their  right  intention  in  the  performance."  Bight  inten- 
tion !  Then  all  the  ministrations  of  paedobaptists  are  valid, 
for  they  believe  that  immersion  is  a  valid  mode  of  baptism. 
Lapse  of  time  cannot  constitute  an  ordinance  valid  which 
was  invalid  in  the  beginning,  and  invalidity  is  transmitted 
throughout  the  succession  of  the  Baptist  ministry  in  this 
country. 

Perplexity  is  now  extreme.  But  hope  beams  faintly  from 
another  quarter.  We  are  told  that  the  line  of  succession 
17 


194  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


was  transported  from  Europe  to  America.  And  suppose  it 
was — the  exotic  is  as  spurious  as  the  native  plant.  Was 
Peter  de  Bruis  an  apostle  ?  No.  And  who  baptized  him  ? 
Cannot  tell.  Was  Munzer  an  apostle,  or  in  regular  succes- 
sion by  ordination  from  the  apostles  ?  No.  And  who  bap- 
tized him  ?  Cannot  tell.  The  darkness  is  impenetrable. 
Who  was  the  founder  of  the  Baptist  Church  in  Europe  ? 
In  what  part  of  the  world,  in  what  age,  and  under  what  cir- 
cumstances did  he  exist  ?  If  the  pages  of  history  reveal  the 
truth,  no  better  origin  of  the  Baptist  Church  and  ministry 
in  our  country  can  be  given  than  what  we  have  given.  If 
a  better  origin  existed  than  what  we  have  presented,  it  would 
have  been  adduced  by  Mr.  Backus,  who  wrote  the  early 
history  of  the  Baptist  Church  in  New  England.  Let  us 
then  refer  again  to  the  pages  of  this  Baptist  historian,  who 
has  given  such  satisfactory  information  respecting  the  founda- 
tion of  "  the  first  Baptist  church  in  America,  and  in  the 
British  Empire." 

The  origin  of  the  second  Baptist  church  in  America. 
"  Mr.  John  Clarke  was  a  preacher  of  the  gospel  at  Newport, 
until  he  formed  a  Baptist  Church  there  in  1644,  which  has 
continued  by  succession  ever  since."22  Who  was  John 
Clarke  ?  and  whence  did  he  derive  authority  to  transmit  a 
"  succession"  of  clerical  ordinations  from  Newport?  The 
circumstances  of  his  baptism  and  ordination  are  wholly 
omitted.  In  the  "  Encyclopedia  of  Religious  Knowledge," 
it  is  stated,  "Mr.  Clarke  was  soon  employed  as  a  preacher, 
and  in  1644  he  formed  a  church  at  Newport  and  became  its 
pastor.  This  was  the  second  Baptist  Church  which  was 
established  in  America."  ■  We  have  no  information  con- 
cerning his  immersion.  Like  Roger  Williams,  it  is  very 
probable,  his  authority  to  baptize  commenced  with  himself. 

82  Backus's  Church  History,  c.  iii.  52.  »  P.  379. 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  195 


The  third  Baptist  church  in  America.  "While  Mr 
Clarke  was  in  England,  a  new  Baptist  church  was  formed 
out  of  the  first  church  in  Newport,  holding  to  the  laying  on 
of  hands  after  baptism,  about  the  year  1656,  which  was  the 
third  Baptist  church  in  America,  and  is  still  continued  by 
succession."  24  Whether  the  "  succession"  from  this  church 
be  from  the  administrations  of  Mr.  Clarke,  or  otherwise,  it 
is  doubtful  and  immaterial,  as  must  at  once  be  obvious  ta 
the  reader. 

The  fourth  Baptist  church  in  America.  "The  first  Bap- 
tist church  in  Wales  was  formed  near  Swansea,  in  that 
country,  in  1649.  Mr.  John  Miles  was  their  chief  leader, 
and  they  increased  to  about  three  hundred  members,  by  the 
year  1662,  when  he  was  ejected  out  of  his  place  by  a  cruel 
act  of  parliament,  which  turned  two  thousand  teachers  out 
of  their  places  in  one  day,  for  refusing  fully  to  conform  with 
the  Church  of  England."  Here  then  the  first  Baptist  church 
in  Wales  grew  up  in  the  Church  of  England,  and  dates  its 
origin  in  the  year  1649.  Mr.  Backus  proceeds :  "  He 
(John  Miles)  then  came  over  with  the  book  of  the  records 
he  had  kept  there,  and  it  remains  in  our  Swansea  to  this 
day.  And  at  the  house  of  John  Butterworth,  in  Rehoboth, 
in  1663,  John  Miles,  elder,  James  Brown,  and  several  others, 
covenanted  together  as  a  church  of  Christ,  to  obey  him  in 
all  his  ordinances  and  commandments.  In  1667,  the  court 
granted  them  the  town  of  Swansea,  where  the  church  has 
continued  by  succession  ever  since,  and  is  the  fourth  Baptist 
church  in  America."25  Thus,  the  succession  of  ministers, 
whoever  they  were,  from  the  fourth  Baptist  church  in 
America,  is  derived  from  the  Church  of  England,  and  hence 
is  no  better  than  the  paedobaptist  succession  derived  from 
the  same  church. 

24  Backus's  Church  History,  pp.  108-109.  2>  Ibid.  93-94. 


196  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


The  fifth  Baptist  church  in  America.  "  The  fifth  was 
formed  in  Massachusetts/'  under  the  following  circumstances. 
A  certain  Thomas  Gould,  it  seems,  had  a  child  born  in 
1656,  and  "  could  not  bring  him  to  be  sprinkled."  He  was 
willing,  however,  to  commune  with  the  church  in  Charles- 
town,  "if  they  would  let  him  do  it  without  carrying  his 
child  to  an  ordinance  which  he  had  no  faith  in."  But 
they  could  come  to  no  compromise.  "  At  length  three  Bap- 
tist brethren  came  over  from  England,  recommended  from 
churches  there,  and  met  him  and  others  in  private  houses. 
And  on  May  28,  1665,  Thomas  Gould  and  others  joined  in 
solemn  covenant,  &c.;"  26  and  thus  originated  the  fifth  Bap- 
tist church  in  America.  Here  is  Thomas  Gould,  a  layman, 
and  with  him,  "three  Baptist  brethren  from  England,"  most 
probably  laymen,  as  Mr.  Backus  generally  designates  the 
office  in  the  church  when  the  person  is  an  elder — and  these 
laymen  become  the  founders  of  the  fifth  Baptist  church  in 
America — a  source  of  succession  radically  defective. 

The  sixth  Baptist  church  in  America.  "A  small  church 
was  formed  out  of  that  (the  church  in  Xewport)  in  December, 
1671,  holding  to  the  seventh-day  Sabbath,  which  yet  con- 
tinues. This  made  the  sixth  Baptist  church  in  America."27 
The  origin  of  the  church  in  Newport  has  already  been  con- 
sidered. 

Thus,  these  six  original  Baptist  churches  in  America 
derived  their  origin  from  the  Church  of  England,  im- 
mediately or  remotely,  by  separation  or  ejectment,  through 
elders  or  laymen,  and  so,  in  some  cases,  succession  is  radi- 
cally defective,  in  others  only  a  regular  pasdobaptist  suc- 
cession— in  all  wholly  destitute  of  succession  from  the 
apostles,  which  alone  could  support  the  assumption  of  ex- 
clusive right  to  administer  baptism  by  immersion.   Therefore, 

26  Backus's  Church  History,  p.  U,  95.  =  Ibid.  109. 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  197 


the  Baptist  church  cannot  deny  the  validity  of  the  administra- 
tions of  the  psedobaptist  churches,  without  invalidating  her 
own.  Further,  if  regular  clerical  ordination  be  indispensable 
to  the  validity  of  baptism,  then  immersion  by  a  psedobaptist 
minister  is  preferable  to  immersion  at  the  hands  of  a  Baptist 
minister,  since  the  founders  of  the  psedobaptist  churches  were 
regularly  ordained  elders,  while  the  founders  of  the 
Baptist  Church  vj  ere,  for  the  most  part,  LAYMEN,  having  no 
authority  to  preach  the  gospel  and  administer  the  sacraments. 
Indeed,  the  whole  question  before  us  is  surrendered  in 
the  unqualified  and  candid  concessions  of  Mr.  Benedict,  who 
is  the  highest  historical  authority  among  the  Baptists;  and 
the  reader,  I  am  sure,  will  be  not  a  little  surprised  at  the 
following  extracts  from  the  "  History  of  the  Baptists"  by 
this  celebrated  author.  He  first  gives  "  one  line  of  the  Bap- 
tist succession/'  as  follows : — 


Date. 

Waldenses  and  Ricards.  1450 

Hussites 1420 

Waldo  and  his  followers  1176 

Arnoldists 1150 

Henricians 1140 

Petrobrussians 1135 

Berengarians 1049 


Date. 

Gundulphians 1025 

Paterines 945 

Yaudois 714 

Paulicians 653 

Donatists 311 

Novatians 250 

(See  page  47,  note.) 


This,  Mr.  Benedict  calls  "  one  line  or  chain  of  Baptist 

succession,"  in  which  no  two  links  are  united,  as  he  admits 

himself  in  the  following  pages.     Hear  him  :  "  The  Xovatians 

broke  off  from  the  Church  of  Rome  in  250; — the  Donatists 

began  their  operations  at  Cartilage,  a  little  after  300; — the 

Paulicians   arose  within  the  bounds  of  the  Greek  Church 

about  the  middle   of  the  seventh  century; — the  Paterines 

began  in  Italy  in  the  tenth  century; — the  "Waldenses  and 

Albisrenses  became  more  publicly  known  about  1165; — the 

17* 


198  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


Petrcbru.^sians  arose  in  the  South  of  France  about  1110; — 
Berengarius,  the  founder  of  the  Berengarians,  arose  in  France 
1050; — Henry,  the  founder  of  the  Henricians,  appears  as  a 
reformer  about  1116; — Arnold,  the  founder  of  the  Arnold- 
ists,  appears  as  a  reformer  about  1137; — the  Hussites,  so 
named  from  John  Huss,  who  appeared  in  the  character  of  a 
reformer  in  1407."  (Pp.  51-53.)  And  he  observes  (p.  50) 
of  these  reformers,  "  they  icere  all  DISSENTERS  from  the  great 
national  churches."  Dissenters  !  then  they  were  all  baptized 
ix  infancy,  and  consequently  they  must  have  baptized 
themselves  in  order  to  become  reformers  in  the  sense  of  Mr. 
Benedict.  Each  instance  of  dissent  was  a  new  era,  and 
furnished  a  new  origin.  And  Mr.  Benedict,  in  this  par- 
ticular, is  the  most  consistent  and  candid  Baptist  historian 
on  record.  Says  he,  "I  shall  not  attempt  to  trace  a 
continuous  line  of  churches,  as  we  can  for  a  few  cen- 
turids  past  in  Europe  and  America.  Tin's  is  a  hind  of  suc- 
cession to  which  we  have  never  laid  claim;  and  of 

course,  WE  .MAKE  NO  EFFORT  TO  PROVE  IT.  We  PLACE  NO 
KIND  OF  RELIANCE  ON  THIS  SORT  OF  TESTIMONY  to  establish 
the  SOUNDNESS  of  our  faith,  or  the  VALIDITY  of  our  ad- 
ministrations." (P.  51.)  Well  done,  Benedict!  the  contest 
is  ended ! — and  never  let  the  Baptists  question  again  "  the 
soundness  of  the  faith,  or  the  validity  of  the  administrations" 
of  their  paedobaptist  brethren.  And  yet  one  quotation  more. 
Dr.  "Wayland,  one  of  the  most  distinguished  divines  of  the 
Baptist  Church  in  America,  observes:  "It  is  convenient,  as 
a  matter  of  church  order,  that  there  should  be  some  general 
rule,  and  that  this  rite  be  administered  by  a  clergyman,  and 
it  would  be  naturally  performed  by  one  who  had  himself 
been  baptized  by  immersion.  But  if  those  things  be  absent 
from  necessity  or  ignorance,  they  alter  not  the  fact  that  the 
person  who  has  been  immersed  on  profession  of  faith,  is,  as 
I  understand  it,  a  baptized  believer.     This  is  a  very  common 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  199 


case  with  us  in  this  city.  Congregationalists,  Episcopalians, 
and  Methodists,  here,  quite  frequently  baptize  persons  on 
profession  of  their  faith.  "VYe  consider  them  as  baptized 
believers,  and  when  they  request  it,  admit  them  upon  a 
simple  relation  of  their  experience.  Indeed,  were  not  this 
admitted,  I  know  not  to  what  absurdities  we  should  be  re- 
duced. If  the  obedience  of  Christ  depends  upon  the  ordi- 
nance being  administered  by  a  regular  baptized  administrator, 
where  are  v:e  to  stop,  andhoio  shall  we  know  who  is  regularly 
baptized;  or  who  has  obeyed  Christ?  All  this  looks  to  me 
absolutely  trivial,  and  wholly  aside  from  the  principles 
which,  as  Protestants  and  Baptists,  we  have  always  con- 
sidered as  essential  to  Christian  liberty.  It  seems  to  me 
assuming  Puseyism  under  another  name;  or,  in  fact,  going 
back  to  the  ecclesiastical  errors  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Such 
are  my  views.  How  they  meet  the  views  of  others  I  know 
not,  but  to  me  these  principles  of  Christian  freedom  are 
above  all  price."  This  high  authority  shows  that  the  Bap- 
tists themselves  admit  the  validity  of  immersion  at  the  hands 
of  a  paedobaptist  minister  who  has  not  been  baptized  by  im- 
mersion, and  therefore  persons  in  the  paedobaptist  churches, 
who  have  been  immersed  by  paedobaptist  ministers,  have 
been  properly  baptized.  Thus,  this  old,  plausible,  and 
popular  objection  falls  to  the  ground. 

But  this  is  not  all.  If  the  psedobaptist  minister  who  has 
not  been  immersed  may  administer  valid  baptism,  one  of 
the  sacraments,  he  may  administer  the  Lord's  supper  also, 
the  other  sacrament;  and  preach  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Christ; 
and  have  the  pastoral  oversight  of  the  flock  of  Christ;  in  a 
word,  do  all  the  work  of  the  minister  of  Christ.  There  is 
no  more  reason  why  the  Baptists  should  decline  receiving 
the  communion  at  the  hands  of  a  paedobaptist  minister,  than 
there  is  that  they  should  decline  communing  with  persons 
who  have  been  immersci  by  a  paedobaptist  minister.     This 


200  THE   MODE   OP  BAPTISM. 


much  at  least  is  conceded  by  the  Baptists  themselves — that 
all  in  the  psedobaptist  churches  who  have  been  immersed, 
have  been  validly  baptized ;  and  consequently,  that  all  such 
may  as  validly  receive  the  Lord's  supper  at  the  hands  of 
pasdobaptist  ministers;  and  as  the  Baptists  themselves  have 
been  immersed,  they  also  may  receive  the  Lord's  supper  in 
the  pasdobaptist  churches,  without  sin,  and  without  blame, 
upon  their  own  principles — and  we  welcome  them  all  to  the 
enjoyment  of  the  privilege. 

Eighthly.  It  has  been  said  by  the  Baptists,  and  the  reader 
probably  has  seen  the  declaration,  that  "as  late  as  1643,  in 
the  Assembly  of  Divines  at  Westminster,  sprinkling  was 
substituted  for  immersion  by  a  majority  of  one — twenty-five 
voting  for  sprinkling,  and  twenty-four  for  immersion.  This 
small  majority  was  obtained  by  the  earnest  request  of  Dr. 
Lightfoot,  who  had  acquired  great  influence  in  that  As- 
sembly." This  statement  of  the  matter  is  an  entire  mis- 
representation, as  we  shall  now  prove.  1.  Dr.  Lightfoot,  in 
his  journal,  says,  that  the  matter  in  dispute  was,  "sprinkling 
being  granted,  whether  dipping  should  be  tolerated  with  it." 
The  question  was,  not  whether  sprinkling  should  be  substi- 
tuted for  immersion,  for  sprinkling  was  all  along  received  as 
lawful,  but  whether  immersion  also  should  be  admitted  as 
valid.  In  a  word,  the  question  was,  shall  "dipping  be  ex- 
cluded," and  sprinkling  be  invariably  practised.  Twenty- 
four  voted  against  excluding  immersion;  that  is,  against 
prohibiting  immersion  to  those  who  might  prefer  it.  As  in 
the  present  day,  the  Episcopalian,  Presbyterian,  and  Metho- 
dist churches  leave  the  choice  of  mode  with  the  subject  of 
baptism,  so  the  twenty-four  above  voted  that  the  same 
privilege  might  be  granted  to  the  subject  in  their  day;  and 
hence,  it  can  no  more  be  maintained  that  the  Assembly 
wished  to  substitute  sprinkling  for  immersion,  than  it  can 
be  maintained,   that   any  in  the   present  day,  who  prefer 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  201 


sprinkling  to  immersion,  wish  to  substitute  sprinkling  in 
its  place.  Suppose  a  case : — The  question  comes  up  before 
the  legislative  or  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Church — '-Sprinkling  being  received  as  lawful,  shall  we 
admit  immersion  also  as  lawful?"  That  is,  all  admit  the 
lawfulness  of  sprinkling,  but  some  vote  to  allow  immersion 
to  those  who  may  prefer  it  to  sprinkling.  No  substitution 
is  proposed,  only  the  vote  of  preference  in  certain  cases  is 
carried.  And  so  in  the  Westminster  Assembly,  twenty-four 
voted  that  the  right  of  preference  might  be  granted  to  the 
subject.  And  yet  these  twenty-four,  the  minority,  did  not 
deny  the  validity  of  sprinkling  to  those  who  might  prefer 
it  to  immersion,  as  we  shall  now  see.  2  When  the  propo- 
sition was  put  in  such  a  form  as  include  the  lawfulness  of 
immersion  in  the  cases  of  those  who  might  prefer  it,  the 
Assembly,  "with  great  unanimity,"  declared,  that  as  to  the 
mode  of  baptizing,  it  is  "not  only  lawful  but  also  sufficient, 
and  most  expedient,  to  be  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  water 
on  the  face  of  the  child,  without  adding  any  other  ceremony." 
Now,  how  is  it  possible  to  believe,  that  twenty-four  voted 
against  substituting  sprinkling  for  immersion,  and  yet  should 
vote  for  the  lawfulness,  sufficiency,  and  expediency  of  sprin- 
kling? 3.  But  nothing  final  was  determined  by  the  vote. 
"After  that  vote,"  says  Lightfoot,  "when  we  had  done  all, 
we  concluded  nothing  about  it,  but  the  business  was  recom- 
mitted." 4.  We  have  other  evidence  in  the  premises. 
The  time  when  this  vote  was  taken  is  1643.  Now  twenty- 
three  years  before  this  time,  the  Pilgrims  landed  at  Plymouth, 
and  nineteen  years  after  their  landing,  Roger  Williams,  the 
founder  of  the  Baptist  Church  in  America,  was  immersed 
by  Holliman.  If  immersion  had  been  the  common  practice, 
the  Pilgrim  fathers  would  have  brought  it  with  them,  and 
no  difficulty  then  would  have  existed  in  the  mind  of  Roger 
Williams  for  the  want  of  a  proper  administrator.     Besides, 


202  THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM, 


Richard  Blount,  in  the  reign  of  King  Charles  II.,  went 
from  England  to  the  Netherlands  to  be  immersed,  and  then 
returned,  that  he  might  place  the  Baptist  Church  on  what 
he  deemed  the  proper  foundation.  Could  these  two  events 
have  happened  in  Baptist  history,  had  sprinkling  been  sub- 
stituted for  immersion  but  a  few  years  before  ? 

Ninthly.  "  Immersion  is  baptism,  and  hence  it  is  absurd 
to  talk  of  a  mode  of  baptism."  The  passage  of  Scripture, 
"  One  Lord,  one  faith,  and  one  baptism,"  is  often  adduced 
in  support  of  this  objection.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  begging 
the  question,  to  say  that  immersion  is  the  baptism  referred 
to  in  this  scripture.  In  the  second  place,  the  Scriptures 
speak  of  "baptism."28  In  the  third  place,  the  meaning  of 
the  "one  baptism"  is  wholly  misunderstood  by  the  objector. 
It  comprehends  spiritual  baptism,  which  is  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  outward  formal  baptism,  which  is  "of  water,"29 
both  agreeing  in  one  and  the  same  design,  namely,  consecra- 
tion to  the  service  of  God.  Here  are  two  baptisms,  the  one 
typifying  the  other.  Thus,  there  are  two  kinds  of  faith, 
historical  and  saving,  and  yet  they  both  agree  in  the  end, 
and  are  parts  of  the  u  one  faith."  And  there  are  three 
persons  in  the  Godhead,  but  they  are  the  "one  Lord."  In 
the  fourth  place,  if  baptism  do  not  admit  of  mode,  how  can 
it  be  administered  at  all  ?  If  baptism  imply  action  of  any 
kind,  action  is  the  mode  of  baptism.  And  thus,  if  im- 
mersion is  baptism,  immersion  is  the  mode  of  immersion, 
which  is  absurd — that  is,  the  sacrament,  and  the  mode  of 
administering  it,  are  one  and  the  same  thing,  which  is 
absurd.  The  nature  and  design  of  baptism  are  essentially 
distinct  from  the  mode  of  baptism;  and  the  nature  and 
design  being  supposed,  then  the  proper  subject,  the  proper 
administrator,  the  proper  form,  and  any  mode  agreeable  to 

2s  Heb.  vi  2.  29  John  iii.  5. 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  203 


the  subject,  are  essential  to  the  proper  observance  of  the 
ordinance.  As  baptism  properly  means  a  cashing,  this 
washing  must  be  set  forth  by  some  mode,  but  the  meaning 
of  baptism,  and  the  mode  of  baptism,  are  different  things. 
But  if  baptizo  has  the  exclusive  meaning  of  immerse,  and 
signifies  nothing  but  action,  then  it  has  no  meaning  in  a 
gospel  sense.  That  is,  if  it  mean  nothing  but  immerse,  and 
you  cannot  separate  the  action  from  the  meaning,  nor  add 
any  other  meaning  to  the  word,  then  the  ordinance  is  nothing 
but  a  senseless  ceremony,  which  were  to  exclude  it  from  the 
Christian  dispensation.  If  however  wash  be  admitted  as  the 
meaning  of  baptizo,  then  any  mode  that  shall  set  forth  this 
meaning,  may  be  adopted  without  invalidating  other  modes 
that  set  forth  the  same  thing. 

Tenthly.  "  There  is  no  CROSS  in  sjrr inkling."  It  is  urged 
that  there  is  a  cross  in  being  immersed,  and,  therefore,  im- 
mersion is  to  be  preferred  to  sprinkling.  Groundless  as 
this  assertion  really  is,  it  is  surprising  to  see  what  an  in- 
fluence it  has  over  many  sincere  Christians.  A  partial  ex- 
amination will  be  enough  to  convince  us  that  in  this  instance 
the  Baptists  confound  the  cross  of  Christ,  in  a  true  scrip- 
tural sense,  with  a  spontaneous  or  constitutional  repugnance 
to  being  plunged  into  water — a  resistance  wholly  ph}Tsical 
and  instinctive — not  having  in  it  any  reluctance  of  a  moral 
nature.  Thus,  in  a  frigid  zone,  and  in  our  own  climate  in 
certain  seasons  of  the  year,  it  is  perfectly  natural  to  shrink 
from  being  immersed  in  cold  water;  while  in  a  torrid  zone, 
and  in  our  own  climate  in  the  summer,  the  languishing  sys- 
tem instinctively  desires  the  use  of  the  cool,  refreshing  water. 
Besides,  in  the  case  of  the  delicate  and  refined  female,  there 
is  the  instinctive  timidity  and  repugnance  of  her  sex  to  be 
taken  into  the  question,  in  the  case  of  immersion  at  any 
time,  but  especially  in  the  sight  of  men.  In  a  word,  what 
is  here  called  a  cross  is  nothing  more  than  an  instinctive  or 


204  THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


natural  propensity  to  resist  any  sudden  hazard  of  our  safety 
which  God  himself  has  implanted  in  our  constitution — an 
instinct  wholly  involuntary,  and  without  the  co-operation  of 
the  will,  reason,  or  the  sense  of  duty,  and  which,  when  per- 
mitted to  control,  often  utterly  precludes  that  devotional 
serenity  of  mind  which  is  indispensable  to  the  proper  dis- 
charge of  religious  obligation.  In  all  this  there  is  not  one 
element  essential  to  the  idea  of  "  the  cross/'  or  the  duty  of 
"  taking  up  the  cross,"  in  the  scriptural  sense  of  the  terms. 
The  Baptists  imagine  they  find  a  cross  where,  in  the  nature 
of  things,  there  can  be  none.  There  can  be  no  cross  where 
there  is  no  duty ;  and  there  may  be  suffering  where  there  is 
no  cross.  It  must  first  be  proved  that  immersion  is  made 
binding  upon  the  believer,  before  the  idea  of  "  the  cross"  can 
enter  into  immersion.  But  this  is  the  very  point  in  ques- 
tion ;  and  to  argue  from  an  instinctive  repugnance  to  being 
immersed  to  the  obligation  to  be  immersed,  is  begging  the 
question.  It  would  be  just  as  logical  to  argue  that  because 
man  has  an  instinctive  repugnance  to  putting  his  hand  into 
the  fire,  therefore  it  is  his  duty  to  put  his  hand  into  the  fire. 
But  prove  that  it  is  his  duty,  in  any  specific  case,  as  in  mar- 
tyrdom, to  submit  to  the  operation  of  fire,  and  it  becomes  a 
cross  to  do  so,  that  is,  he  must  resist  the  natural  repugnance  to 
fire  for  Christ's  sake  :  "  for  whosoever  shall  save  his  life  shall 
lose  it."  Again,  it  would  be  just  as  logical  to  argue  that 
because  man  has  an  instinctive  repugnance  to  death,  there- 
fore it  is  his  duty  to  destroy  his  life.  But  prove,  first,  that 
it  is  his  duty  to  die  in  any  specific  case,  as  for  "  Christ,"  or 
u  the  brethren,"  and  it  becomes  "a  cross"  to  do  so;  that 
is,  he  must  resist  the  instinctive  repugnance  to  death  for  the 
6ake  of  Christ,  or  the  brethren  :  u  if  any  man  will  come 
after  me,  let  him  deny  himself  and  take  vp  his  cross  and  fol- 
low me,  for — whosoever  shall  lose  his  life  f*r  my  sake  shall 
find  it."   Matt.  xvi.  24-25.     Why,  in  such  a  case,  should  a 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  205 


jian  resist  his  repugnance  to  death  and  consent  to  die  ?  Be- 
cause it  is  made  his  duty  to  do  so.  Where  it  is  not  his  duty 
to  sacrifice  life,  instinctive  repugnance  to  death  cannot  be 
made  the  basis  of  "  a  cross/'  but  is  an  impulse  wisely  im- 
planted in  our  nature  for  the  preservation  of  life  during 
God's  good  pleasure.  To  make  the  cases  analogous,  and  so 
make  out "  a  cross"  in  immersion,  the  Baptists  must  first  prove 
that  immersion,  as  the  mode  of  baptism,  is  solemnly  enjoined 
as  a  duty  upon  every  believer.  But  this  is  the  very  point 
in  controversy — a  point  to  be  settled  before  u  a  cross,"  in 
the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  can  be  recognised  in  immersion. 
Thus,  until  immersion  be  proved  to  be  enjoined  as  a  duty, 
it  is  denied  that  there  is,  properly  speaking,  any  "  cross"  in 
immersion,  and  so  the  objection  utterly  fails. 

Eleventhly.  We  come  now  to  the  accommodating  argument 
of  the  Baptists,  which  we  shall  state  in  the  fairest  light,  and 
consider  at  length.  "All  orthodox  denominations  agree 
that  immersion  is  a  valid  mode ;  but  all  do  not  agree  that 
sprinkling  and  pouring  are  valid  modes ;  therefore,  that  is 
the  best  mode  about  which  all  agree.  In  other  words  :  the 
four  prominent  denominations  of  Christians  agree  that  im- 
mersion is  a  valid  mode,  while  but  three  of  them  agree  that 
sprinkling  and  pouring  are  valid  modes;  therefore  there 
can  be  no  doubt  with  regard  to  the  validity  of  immersion." 
This  is  the  most  plausible,  captivating,  and  popular  argu- 
ment ever  adduced  in  favor  of  immersion;  yet  never  was 
there  an  argument  more  sophistical  and  unsound.  It  is 
rendered  the  more  plausible  by  the  familiar  illustration  of 
three  deeds  or  notes,  representing  the  three  popular  modes 
of  baptism,  namely,  sprinkling,  pouring,  and  immersion. 
Four  judges  attest  to  the  validity  of  one  of  the  deeds,  while 
three  of  the  judges  declare  that  both  of  the  other  deeds  are 
just  as  good.  Three  of  the  judges  say  there  can  be  no 
doubt  of  the  genuineness  of  two  of  the  notes,  while  one  of 

13 


206  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


the  judges  says  they  are  counterfeit  altogether  :  but  all  four 
judges  agree  that  the  genuineness  of  one  of  the  notes  is  un- 
questionable. Therefore,  the  deed  or  note  whose  genuine- 
ness is  attested  to  by  all  the  judges  is  preferable  to  the 
notes  or  deeds  which  are  sustained  by  only  three  of  the 
judges.  All  this  we  pronounce  to  be  sophistry,  which  a 
moment's  honest  reflection  may  expose. 

The  sophistry  in  the  argument  is  this :  the  Baptists  con- 
found the  admission  of  the  validity  of  immersion  as  a  mode 
of  baptism,  with  their  own  views  of  its  exclusiveness.  They 
lose  sight  of  their  particular  dogma  in  the  general  admis- 
sion of  the  paedobaptists.  The  paedobaptists  as  strenuously 
oppose  the  exclusive  validity  of  immersion  as  the  Baptists 
do  the  validity  of  sprinkling  and  pouring.  There  is  no 
unanimity  among  the  judges.  He  that  is  baptized  by  im- 
mersion, vainly  imagining  that  he  is  confirmed  in  his  opinion 
by  the  corroborating  admission  of  the  paedobaptists,  does 
in  fact  set  aside  the  judgment  of  three  of  the  judges.  But 
he  who  is  baptized  by  immersion,  believing  it  to  be  a  valid 
mode,  and  at  the  same  time  admitting  the  equal  validity  of 
sprinkling  and  pouring,  is  confirmed  in  his  opinions  and 
practice  by  the  judgment  of  three  of  the  judges,  and  sup- 
ported by  the  concession  of  the  fourth  judge  in  the  case. 
For  the  Baptists  have  been  forced  to  concede,  as  we  have 
seen,  that  immersion  at  the  hands  of  a  paedobaptist  is  valid 
baptism  ;  and,  therefore,  the  four  judges  agree  in  the  validity 
of  immersion  at  the  hands  of  a  paedobaptist,  while  the  man 
who  believes  in  exclusive  immersion  is  supported  by  only 
one  of  the  judges.  It  is  admitted  that  immersion  is  valid; 
but  this  is  not  admitted  upon  the  ground  occupied  by  the 
Baptists,  namely,  exclusiveness  of  immersion,  but  because 
mere  mode  is  regarded  as  not  essential;  and  hence  the 
validity  of  immersion  at  the  hands  of  a  Baptist  does  not 
support  their  pretensions,  nor  destroy  the  validity  of  immer- 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  207 


sion  at  the  hands  of  a  paedobaptist.  Immersion  is  as  valid 
at  the  hands  of  a  paedobaptist  as  it  is  at  the  hands  of  a  Bap- 
tist, because  the  validity  of  immersion,  as  we  have  seen,  does 
not  depend  upon  the  manner  by  which  the  administrator 
himself  was  baptized,  and  thus  the  note  or  deed  is  as  good 
in  the  hands  of  the  paedobaptist  as  it  is  in  the  hands  of  the 
Baptist. 

The  only  question  now  to  be  considered  respects  the  testi- 
mony of  the  judges  concerning  the  validity  of  sprinkling 
and  pouring.  Three  of  the  judges  regard  them  as  valid 
modes,  and  one  of  the  judges  does  not  so  regard  them; 
hence  the  weight  of  testimony  is  in  favor  of  sprinkling  and 
pouring.  Besides,  he  who  admits  the  validity  of  these 
modes,  and  yet  prefers  immersion,  may  obtain  it  in  a  valid 
form  at  the  hands  of  a  paedobaptist.  Indeed,  upon  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Baptists  he  may  obtain  immersion  at  the  hands 
of  a  paedobaptist  by  a  more  regular  succession  than  he  can 
at  the  hands  of  a  Baptist — the  Baptists  themselves  being 
judges.  Moreover,  immersion  at  the  hands  of  a  paedobap- 
tist obtains  all  the  advantages  of  free  and  open  communion. 
The  Baptists  cannot  deny  this  without  unchurching  them- 
selves and  invalidating  their  own  administrations.  Indeed, 
upon  the  principles  of  the  Baptists,  they  have  no  right  to 
administer  the  sacraments  at  all,  and  no  ground  on  which  to 
sustain  the  dogma  of  "  close  communion,"  since  the  doctrine 
of  exclusive  immersion  is  not  of  apostolic  origin  and  succes- 
sion, and  the  original  immersions  of  the  Baptist  Church  were 
administered  by  laymen — as  has  been  proved.  Nor  is  this 
all :  upon  the  principles  of  the  Baptists,  they  are  not  properly 
constituted  a  judge  in  the  premises,  and  the  question  must 
be  left  with  the  proper  judges  for  final  settlement. 

The  sophism  of  the  Baptists  under  consideration  is  ana- 
logous to  two  very  familiar  sophisms  in  the  religious  world, 


208  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 


one  of  the  Jews,  and  the  other  of  the  Romish  church. 
That  of  the  Jews  :  "Both  Jews  and  Christians  confess  that 
the  religion  of  Moses  came  from  God ;  but  the  Jews  do  not 
believe  in  the  divinity  of  the  Christian  religion ;  the  safest 
way,  therefore,  is  to  hold  what  both  sides  believe  as  true." 
And  yet  no  one  becomes  a  Jew  from  the  force  of  this  con- 
clusion. The  sophism  of  the  Papist :  "  Both  the  Romanists 
and  the  Reformed  believe  salvation  may  be  had  in  the  Church 
of  Rome ;  but  the  Romanists  do  not  believe  it  may  be  had 
in  the  churches  of  the  Reformed :  therefore,  it  is  safest  to 
adhere  to  Popery."  And  yet  who  becomes  a  Romanist  from 
the  force  of  this  conclusion  ?  The  sophism  of  the  Baptists  : 
"  The  Baptist  and  psedobaptist  churches  believe  that  immer- 
sion is  valid ;  but  the  Baptist  Church  does  not  believe  in 
the  validity  of  sprinkling  and  pouring ;  therefore,  the  safest 
mode  of  baptism  is  that  of  immersion."  And  many,  very 
many  are  convinced  by  this  sophism  in  favor  of  immersion, 
though  there  is  no  more  reason  in  it  than  is  contained  in  the 
sophisms  above.  The  fact,  that  the  great  majority  of  Chris- 
tians in  the  world  are  not  Jews,  and  the  powerful  arguments 
written  in  defence  of  Christianity,  effectually  refute  the 
sophism  of  the  Jews  :  the  revolutions  of  Divine  Providence, 
the  rapid  progress  and  unparalleled  prosperity  of  Protestant 
nations,  and  the  testimony  of  enlightened  generations,  com- 
bine to  refute  the  sophism  of  the  Papists  :  and  so  the  united 
testimony  of  the  psedobaptist  churches,  from  apostolic  times 
to  the  present,  fairly  refutes  the  sophism  of  the  Baptists. 
Indeed,  the  concession  of  the  Baptists,  that  immersion  at  the 
hands  of  a  paedobaptist  is  valid  baptism,  invests  immersion  so 
administered  with  all  the  force  of  the  Baptists'  idea  of  ex- 
clusiveness,  and  thus  in  fact  the  concession  alone  refutes  the 
favorite  sophism  of  the  Baptists ;  for  immersion  at  the  hands 
of  a  psedobaptist  is  conceded  by  the  Baptists  to  be  valid,  and 


OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED.  '     209 


consequently  immersion,  one  of  the  deeds,  may  be  obtained 
in  a  genuine  form  in  the  paedobaptist  churches.30 

Before  closing  our  consideration  of  the  mode  of  baptism, 
we  will  make  one  more  remark.  To  prefer  immersion  as  a 
mode  of  baptism  is  admissible,  but  to  regard  it  as  the  only 
valid  mode  of  baptism  is  superstitious.  In  the  former  case 
it  is  preferring  a  mode  in  itself  non-essential,  but  in  the 
latter  case  it  is  investing  an  external  rite  with  a  virtue  ex- 
clusively inherent  in  itself — and  this  is  elemental  in  Popery. 
The  efficacy  of  an  ordinance  depends  solely  upon  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Holy  Ghost  that  accompanies  or  follows  its 
administration,  irrespective  of  the  mode.  The  benefit  of  an 
ordinance  does  not  originate  in  any  essential  connection  of 
the  mode  with  the  ordinance,  but  in  the  divine  blessing 
alone,  imparted  at  the  time  of  administration  or  thereafter ; 
and,  therefore,  we  infer  that  mode  is  non-essential ;  and  that 
exclusiveness  is  not  only  superstitious,  but  dangerous,  since 
superstition  tends  to  abuse.  It  betrays  "  unwary  souls"  into 
a  delusive  confidence.  Immersion,  as  an  external  rite,  and 
its  concomitant  error,  " close  communion"  are  the  promi- 
nent characteristics  of  the  Baptist  Church ;  and  wherever 
this  is  the  case  there  is  danger  of  sectarian  idolatry,  and 
superstitious  reliance  in  rites  and  ceremonies.  Exclusive 
immersion  is  a  "yoke  of  bondage/ '  which  the  Baptists  have 


30  We  will  here  correct  a  misrepresentation  often  made  by  the  Baptists, 
in  public  and  in  private,  "that  while  the  paedobaptists  immerse,  they  do 
not  believe  in  the  validity  of  immersion."  "Why,  the  Baptists  proceed,  in 
the  sophism  above,  upon  the  paedobaptists'  admission  of  the  validity  of 
immersion,  and  it  is  ungenerous  now  to  charge  them  with  insincerity. 
Besides,  we  have  only  to  refer  the  reader  to  our  Discipline.  "  Let  every 
adult  person,  and  the  parents  of  every  child  to  be  baptized,  have  the 
choice  either  of  immersion,  sprinkling,  or  pouring."  Methodist  Discipline, 
p.  76.  See  also  "  Ministration  of  Baptism  to  Infants,"  ibid.  p.  110.  Also, 
"to  adults,"  ibid.  p.  115.  The  same  references  may  be  made  to  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Prayer  Book. 

18* 


210  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


"  added"  to  the  "  necessary"  things  contained  in  the  Book 
of  Life.  To  this  tendency  is  to  be  ascribed  in  part  that 
miserable,  pernicious,  and  destructive  heresy  of  baptismal 
regeneration,  which  has  recently  sprung  up  in  the  Baptist 
Church,  and  has  extended  to  an  alarming  and  melancholy  ex- 
tent, particularly  in  the  Western  country — a  heresy,  like  all 
other  heresies,  at  once  gloomy,  mournful,  and  desperate — 
I  mean  Camjpbellism.  To  the  same  source  is  to  be  ascribed 
the  spirit  of  controversy  on  infant  baptism,  and  immersion, 
which  certain  persons  often  commence  in  times  of  gracious 
revivals  in  the  churches,  when  penitents  should  rather  first 
be  encouraged  in  seeking  pardon,  and  young  converts  be 
settled  in  Christian  experience  and  in  things  essential  to 
their  present  peace  and  fitness  for  the  sacramental  seal,  than 
have  their  minds  perplexed,  as  they  sometimes  are,  about  a 
mere  external  rite,  which  obtrusive  zeal  itself  admits  is  not 
essential  to  salvation.  "  The  river,  the  river,"  really  seems 
by  some  to  be  placed  in  the  room  of  "  the  Saviour" — and  often 
the  young  and  fearful  conscience  has  been  injudiciously 
directed  to  the  imagined  necessity  of  being  buried  by  bap- 
tism under  water,  before  the  heart  has  become  prepared  to 
be  "  buried  by  baptism  into  death." 


PART  III. 

Infant  baptism, 

CHAPTER  I. 

THE    GROUND    OF   INFANT   BAPTISM. 

It  is  surprising  that  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism  ever 
should  have  been  contested,  or  been  made  the  cause  of 
division  in  the  church,  under  whose  maternal  care  they  are 
placed  by  Christ,  and  at  whose  altar  they  are  presented  by 
Christ  as  a  model  of  piety  and  obedience  to  man.  Nothing 
but  blessing  is  connected  with  their  early  dedication  to  God 
in  baptism.  The  universal  formal  recognition  of  the  validity 
and  obligation  of  infant  baptism,  with  the  proper  subsequent 
instructions,  would  be  attended  with  spiritual  advantages  to 
the  infant,  the  church,  and  the  world,  obtained  from  no 
other  means. 

It  is  the  disposition  of  man  to  be  self-deceived;  and  when 
once  deception  has  induced  mental  habit,  it  is  easy  to  shrink 
from  an  impartial  and  patient  investigation  of  opposite 
ground,  and  difficult  to  relinquish  opinions  long  and  fondly 
cherished.  We  despair  of  communicating  any  information 
to  those  who  may  read  the  following  pages  with  a  prede- 
termination to  reject  every  thing  that  may  be  in  opposition 
to  their  views.  We  beseech  the  reader  not  to  embrace  or 
oppose  what  may  be  presented,  merely  because  it  is  con- 
sistent or  not  with  his  opinions,  but  according  as  it  appears  to 
be  true  or  false.     We  shall  proceed  carefully  in  the  examina- 

211 


212  INFANT   BAPTISM. 


tion  of  the  deeply  interesting  subject  before  us,  under  the 
statement  of  the  following  general  proposition :  The  ground 

OF  INFANT  SALVATION  IS  THE  GROUND  OF  INFANT  BAP- 
TISM. We  shall  consider  first,  the  ground  of  infant  sal- 
vation. 

1.  The  ground  of  infant  salvation. 

The  ground  of  salvation  is  the  atonement  of  Christ,  as  we 
have  seen  in  a  former  part  of  this  work.  In  the  Divine 
government,  the  distribution  of  rewards  and  punishments 
is  conditional.  But  on  this  ground,  infants  can  receive 
neither  reward  nor  punishment,  since  the  conditionality  of 
salvation  is  not  applicable  to  them.  That  is,  on  the  ground 
of  conditionality,  infants  can  neither  be  saved  nor  be  lost, 
since  the  principles  of  free  agency  are  inapplicable  to  their 
case.  The  infant  cannot  believe,  therefore  he  cannot  be  saved ; 
he  cannot  sin,  therefore  he  cannot  be  lost.  Had  no  pro- 
vision been  made  to  meet  this  difficulty,  infidelity  might 
have  proposed  this  unanswerable  objection  to  the  church: 
"  What  becomes  of  infants  ?  They  cannot  believe,  therefore 
they  cannot  be  saved;  they  cannot  sin,  and  therefore  they 
cannot  be  lost.  And  since  no  provision  has  been  made  for 
them,  what  becomes  of  innocent,  helpless,  unconscious  in- 
fants V  Had  Christ,  in  the  Old  and  the  New  Testaments, 
left  the  question  of  infant  salvation  here,  the  church  and  the 
world  might  weep  in  mournful  silence  over  the  final  destiny 
of  all  children  dying  in  infancy.  Indeed  there  is  a  sect,1 
that  has  surpassed  infidelity  in  insensibility,  and  declared 
that  all  infants  dyiog  in  infancy  are  annihilated.  But 
Christ,  that  he  might  protect  the  church  against  this  appal- 
ling dilemma,  as  well  as  confound  infidelity,  in  mercy  has 
said,  "Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid 
them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom,  of  heaven — and  he 

1  The  Thomaaites,  a  branch  of  the  Campbellites. 


THE    GROUND    OF    INFANT    SALVATION.  213 


took  them  in  his  arms,  and  blessed  them."  In  this  com- 
prehensive declaration,  their  salvation  is  unconditionally 
secured.  And  as  Christ  simply  announced  divine  truths, 
established  them  by  miracles,  and  then  left  them  as  great 
elemental  doctrines  of  salvation  for  his  apostles  to  explain 
more  at  large,  we  have  the  explanation  and  vindication  of 
infant  salvation  clearly  set  forth  by  the  apostle  Paul:  "As 
by  the  offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men  unto 
condemnation;  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one  the  free 
gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life."  a  That 
is,  all  the  unconditional  evils  involved  in  the  sin  of  Adam 
are,  in  the  case  of  infants  dying  in  infancy,  unconditionally 
removed  by  the  death  of  Christ :  dying,  they  are  regenerated, 
sanctified,  and  exalted  to  heaven,  without  faith;  and  living, 
they  unconditionally  obtain  a  gracious  aid,  by  which,  in  due 
time,  as  free  agents,  they  may  conditionally  obtain  "justifi- 
cation unto  life."  As  in  the  original  creation  of  man,  God 
so  arranged  the  system  of  relations,  that  all  Adam's  posterity 
should  be  legally  connected  with  him  as  their  federal  head, 
so  in  his  infinite  wisdom,  he  has  constituted  the  redemptive 
system  of  relations  in  such  a  manner  that  Christ  becomes 
the  second  Adam.  By  the  union  of  divinity  with  humanity, 
on  the  laws  of  grace,  and  under  the  sanctions  of  justice,  in 
offering  up  himself  as  a  sacrifice  for  Adam's  transgression, 
Christ  transfers  the  federal  representation  of  children  from 
Adam  to  himself,  and  on  this  ground  he  unconditionally 
justifies  and  saves  all  infants  dying  in  infancy.  The  plan 
of  grace  substitutes  this  gracious  connection  in  the  place  of 
the  legal  connection  which  subsisted  in  the  first  creation. 
That  is,  in  order  to  prevent  the  dreadful  consequences  of 
legal  union  with  Adam  as  a  federal  head,  under  the  opera- 
tion of  the  moral  law  involved  in  sin  under  the  Adamic 

2  Rom.  v.  18. 


214  INFANT   BAPTISM. 


law,  Christ,  uniting  himself  with  humanity,  associates  the 
human  race  with  himself,  and  so  unconditionally  justifies 
all  infants  while  in  an  infant  state,  saves  all  without  excep- 
tion, who  die  in  infancy,  and  qualifies  all  for  the  relations 
of  responsibility,  who  live  to  a  responsible  age.  In  a  word, 
in  view  of  the  eflicacy  of  the  blood  of  Christ  to  cleanse  and 
sanctify  all  dying  in  infancy;  in  view  of  the  agency  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  unconditionally  regenerating  all  who  die  in 
infancy,  that  they  may  be  qualified  for  heaven ;  and  in  view 
of  their  right,  on  these  grounds,  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
Christ  declares,  in  the  tenderest  mercy — "Of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  In  a  word,  the  ground  of  infant 
salvation  is  the  sacrificial  death  of  Christ. 

2.  The  ground  of  infant  salvation  is  the  ground 
OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  That  is,  the  institution  of  infant  bap- 
tism, as  expressive  of  the  interest  of  infants  in  the  atonement 
of  Christ,  is  founded  upon  the  atonement  of  Christ:  their 
right  to  initiation  into  the  Church  of  Christ,  under  the 
Christian  dispensation,  is  founded  upon  the  atonement  of 
Christ.     "We  shall  present  the  argument  at  some  length. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  there  should  be  various  opinions 
respecting  the  ground  of  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism, 
since  men's  views  of  baptism  correspond  to  their  theological 
doctrines,  sound  or  unsound.  And  yet  it  is  obvious,  that 
those  views  of  infant  baptism  only  are  correct,  which  are  in 
harmony  with  evangelical  truth.  A  statement,  and  brief 
consideration  of  the  prominent  views  maintained  on  the 
subject,  may  not  only  be  interesting  to  the  general  reader, 
but  contribute  materially  to  the  establishment  of  the  doctrine 
of  infant  baptism.     These  opinions  are  the  following. 

First.  That  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism  "depends  upon 
previous  election  by  God  to  salvation."  Goode  on  Baptism, 
p.  34.  As  in  the  very  nature  of  evangelical  truth,  the  same 
objections  exist  against  infant,  as  against  adult  election — 


THE    GROUND    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  215 


that  is,  as  unconditional  election  is  not  a  doctrine  sustained 
either  by  reason  or  by  Scripture,  and  therefore  cannot  be 
made  the  ground  of  any  right  whatever,  either  in  the  case 
of  the  infant  or  the  adult,  we  shall  not  stop  longer  to  con- 
sider this  opinion. 

Secondly.  That  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism  "  depends 
upon  the  prevision  by  God  of  future  faith  and  repentance 
in  the  child,  at  a  subsequent  period  of  life."  Ibid.  36.  This 
is  in  principle  the  preceding  opinion;  and  we  only  add,  that 
the  foreknowledge  of  God  is  made  in  no  case  the  ground  of 
right  to  the  spiritual  blessings  and  privileges  of  the  covenant 
of  grace. 

Thirdly.  That  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism  depends 
upon  aa  seed,  or  principle,  or  habit  of  faith,  implanted  in 
the  heart,"  or  "a  spiritual  bias  of  the  mind,  which  may  be 
called  a  seed  or  principle  of  faith."  Ibid.  37,  38.  This 
opinion  also  is  founded  upon  the  theory  of  election  and  final 
perseverance,  and  so  may  be  also  despatched  without  further 
consideration. 

Fourthly.  That  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism  is  founded 
upon  the  fact  that  one  of  the  parents  really,  or  at  least 
nominally,  is  believing.  "  Our  service  on  infant  baptism  is 
drawn  up  on  the  hypothesis  that  the  infant  is  the  child  of  at 
least  one  (really,  or  at  any  rate  nominally)  believing  parent." 
Ibid.  32.  The  right  of  infants  to  baptism  is  not  founded 
upon  social  relations,  but  upon  the  vicarious  death  of  Christ, 
and  as  all  children  sustain  the  same  relation  to  the  death 
of  Christ,  all  therefore  are  invested  with  equal  right  to  bap- 
tism :  to  admit  it  in  one  case,  is  to  admit  it  in  all :  to  deny  it 
in  one  case,  is  to  deny  it  in  all :  to  deny  it  in  one  case  is  to 
destroy  altogether  their  only  hope  of  salvation.  Thus,  all 
children  indiscriminately  are  entitled  to  baptism,  in  their 
own  right,  founded  upon  the  vicarious  death  of  Christ — in- 
dependently of  any  relation  to  their  parents — a  right  which 


216  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


baptism  recognises  as  already  existing.  The  gracious  rights 
of  children  are  not  founded  upon  mere  conjectures  or  hy- 
potheses of  any  kind,  but  upon  the  essential,  substantial,  and 
immutable  facts  and  principles  of  the  Godhead  "manifest  in 
the  flesh." 

Fifthly.  Nor  does  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism  depend 
upon  "  vicarious  pledges"  made  by  parents  at  the  time  of 
baptism.  "  It  must  ever  be  recollected  that  baptism  is  a 
rite  in  which  a  covenant-engagement  is  entered  into  between 
G-od  and  man;  in  which,  therefore,  the  engagement  on  God's 
part  is  to  be  met  by  a  corresponding  engagement  on  the  part 
of  man ;  and  where  the  baptized  person  is  too  young  to  make 
this  promise  in  his  own  person,  it  is  to  be  made  by  others 
for  him;  and  baptism  is  administered  on  this  vicarious 
pledge"  &c.  Ibid.  415.  The  vicarious  atonement,  in  every 
case,  and  not  a  vicarious  faith,  is  the  only  ground  of  infant 
baptism. 

Sixthly.  Nor  does  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism  depend 
upon  responsibility,  any  more  than  their  right  to  salvation 
does;  for,  in  the  nature  of  things  in  their  case,  responsibility 
cannot  be  made  the  ground  of  baptism  any  more  than  it  can 
be  made  the  ground  of  salvation. 

Seventhly.  Nor  does  their  right  to  baptism  depend  upon 
volition,  since,  in  the  nature  of  things  in  their  case,  volition 
can  no  more  be  made  the  ground  of  baptism  than  it  can  be 
made  the  ground  of  salvation. 

Eighthly.  Nor  does  their  right  to  baptism  depend  upon 
consciousness,  since,  in  the  nature  of  things  in  their  case,  con- 
sciousness can  no  more  be  made  the  ground  of  baptism,  than 
it  can  be  made  the  ground  of  salvation. 

Ninthly.  Nor  does  their  right  to  baptism  depend  upon 
repentance  and  faith,  since,  in  the  nature  of  things  in  their 
case,  repentance  and  faith  can  no  more  be  made  the  ground 
of  baptism  than  they  can  be  made  the  ground  of  salvation. 


THE    GROUND    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  217 


There  is  one  more  view,  which  we  believe  is  the  only  view 
founded  npon  evangelical  truth,  and  which  we  proceed  to 
state  and  defend. 

The  right  of  infants — all  infants  indiscriminately — is 
founded  upon  the  vicarious  death  of  Christ. 

As  all  infants,  in  consequence  of  their  association  with 
Christ  as  their  federal  representative,  have  an  unconditional 
right  to  all  the  blessings  of  his  atonement,  nothing  is  more 
just  and  rational  than  that  this  right  should  be  formally 
acknowledged  as  soon  as  the  plan  of  redemption  began  to 
be  formally  developed.  As  the  plan  of  salvation  referred  as 
much  to  them  as  to  the  rest  of  the  human  race,  some  men- 
tion of  them  must  be  made  in  the  arrangement  of  the  system 
of  salvation — and  the  church  is  composed  of  all  who  are 
conditionally  or  unconditionally  the  subjects  of  salvation. 
Hence,  in  view  of  the  ground  of  salvation,  and  the  character 
of  those  entitled  to  association  with  the  church,  we  may 
expect  to  find  the  defence  of  the  rights,  and  the  declaration 
of  the  interests  of  infants,  in  the  very  first  dispensation  of 
mercy  that  shall  be  proposed,  and  consequently  a  continua- 
tion of  the  same  rights  and  interests  associated  with  all  suc- 
ceeding dispensations  of  salvation  to  the  end  of  time.  I  go 
back  to  the  first  regularly  constituted  church  in  the  world, 
and  its  constitution  embraces  children.  The  covenant  made 
with  this  church  is  the  everlasting  covenant  of  grace,  founded 
upon  the  atonement  of  Christ,  and  is  thus  expressed  by  G-od 
himself:  "And  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me 
and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations,  for 
an  everlasting  covenant;  to  be  a  Grod  unto  thee,  and  to  thy 
seed  after  thee."3  This  was  the  form  of  the  everksting 
covenant  made  with  Abraham,  embraced  again  in  the  Jew- 
ish covenant,  founded  in  both  these  instances  upon  the  atone- 


3  Gen.  xvii.  7. 
19 


218 


INFANT    BAPTISM, 


inent  of  Christ,  and  is  essentially  the  same  with  the  Chris- 
tian covenant.  Hence,  as  God's  covenant  with  the  church 
changes  not,  Peter,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  opened  the 
Christian  dispensation  with  express  reference  to  this  cove- 
nant in  its  spiritual  bearing  on  the  case  of  the  Jews.  "Re- 
pent, and  be  baptized/'  says  he,  "in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  the  promise  is  unto  you  and 
your  children."*  What  promise,  but  the  one  we  have  just 
quoted  from  the  mouth  of  God,  unalterable  in  its  character 
throughout  all  generations?  This  view  is  supported  by  the 
Apostle  Paul.  "And  he  (Abraham)  received  the  sign  of 
circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith  which  he 
had  yet  being  circumcised  :  that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all 
them  that  believe,  though  they  be  not  circumcised,  thai 
righteousness  might  be  imputed  unto  them"5  That  is, 
Abraham,  through  faith,  received  all  the  blessings  of  the 
everlasting  covenant  made  with  him,  of  which  circumcision 
was  the  sign  and  seal,  and  his  children,  being  embraced  in 
the  same  covenant,  received  the  same  sign  and  seal.  So 
Christian  believers  receive  the  same  blessings  of  the  same 
covenant,  through  the  same  faith,  of  which,  under  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation,  baptism  is  the  sign,  and  therefore  their 
children,  embraced  in  the  same  covenant,  are  entitled  to  the 
same  sign.  Were  you  and  your  children  under  the  Abra- 
haniic,  or  Jewish  dispensation,  would  not  your  children 
receive  the  initiatory  seal  by  which  they  would  be  entitled  to 
all  the  external  and  spiritual  blessings  of  the  Jewish  Church  ? 
Now  as  every  dispensation  of  the  everlasting  covenant  is 
founded  upon  the  atonement  of  Christ,  though  the  dispensa- 
tion, with  its  accompanying  and  corresponding  external  sign 
or  seal,  be  changed,  the  everlasting  covenant  still  remains  in 

4  Acts  ii.  33,  39.  5  Rom.  iv.  11. 


THE    GROUND    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  219 


full  force.  Therefore,  the  same  right  to  salvation  belongs  to 
children  under  all  dispensations — only  the  outward  form  of 
recognising  this  right  may  be  changed  according  to  the 
character  of  the  dispensation;  and  as  the  external  sign  or 
seal  must  be  either  circumcision  or  baptism;  and  as  circum- 
cision is  abolished,  because  the  dispensation  to  which  it  was 
adapted  is  consummated;  and  as  baptism  remains  the  only 
proper  sign  of  initiation  into  the  church  under  the  Christian 
dispensation,  therefore  the  rights  of  infants  to  the  blessings 
of  the  everlasting  covenant  cannot  be  formally  and  properly 
recognised  under  the  Christian  dispensation  in  any  other  way 
than  by  baptism:  the  covenant  remains  the  same;  the  rights 
of  children  remain  the  same;  only  the  rights  of  children 
under  different  dispensations  are  recognised  by  a  different 
sign  or  seal.  Under  the  Christian  dispensation,  therefore, 
children  are  entitled  to  baptism — and  so  shall  be  to  the  end 
of  the  world. 

'  So  long  as  the  same  reason  or  ground  of  right  continues, 
the  same  right  remains  in  full  force  as  at  first.  Thus,  the 
right  of  children  to  church  membership  remains  still  in  force, 
since  the  ground  of  this  right  remains  the  same,  namely,  the 
atonement  of  Christ.  Therefore,  God  himself  cannot  alter 
this  right,  or  revoke  his  own  institution,  without  changing 
the  ground  which  he  himself  has  laid  down  as  the  founda- 
tion of  his  church.  God  himself  cannot  deny  children  a 
right  to  church  membership,  without  changing  essentially  the 
whole  plan  of  redemption.  The  right  of  infants  to  church 
membership  remains  the  same  in  all  ages  of  the  world,  since 
the  reason  or  ground  on  which  God  originally  connected 
them  with  the  church  remains  the  same  in  all  ages.  Firmly 
and  eternally  is  the  right  of  infants  to  church  membership 
established.  This  right  God  has  confirmed  "by  two  im- 
mutable things  in  which  it  is  impossible  for  God  to  lie." 
The  ground  of  infant  circumcision  was  sacrificial,  and  hence 


220  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


Christ  declares,  "I  came  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil;"  and 
hence,  in  confirming  infant  circumcision,  he  confirmed  infant 
baptism.     An  attempt  to  change  the  standing  and  immuta- 
ble law  of  God  transcends  the  bold  enterprise  of  the  fabled 
giants  against  heaven,  which  was  only  a  feint  to  alarm  the 
gods,  but  this  is  a  blow  struck  at  the  throne  of  Jehovah,  to 
divest  him  of  supreme  legislative  power  and  authority,  and 
assumes  more  than  God  himself  can  command  without  making 
a  fundamental  change  in  his  gracious  government.     Let  the 
Baptists  consider  that  they  undertake  to  do  what  God  him- 
self has  not  done,  and  cannot  do  without  changing  the 
foundation  of  human  redemption.     Let  them  consider,  that 
by  changing  the  reason  or  ground  of  the  right  of  infants  to 
church  membership,  they  remove  the  atonement,  which  God 
himself,  in  infinite  mercy  and  wisdom,  laid  down  for  their 
salvation,  and  that  thus  they  leave  no  ground  remaining  on 
which  children  can  be  saved.     They  must  change  the  reason, 
•before  they  can  change  the  right :   they  cannot  destroy  the 
reason  without  destroying  all  the  spiritual  hopes  of  children : 
and  therefore,  in  denying  children  the  right  to  church  mem- 
bership, they  are  in  principle  removing  the  only  ground  on 
which  they  can  be  saved.     It  is  not  in  the  power  of  man, 
however,  to  withhold  from  infants  admission  into  heaven, 
though  they  are  frequently  denied  it  into  the  church  on 
earth.     In  other  words:  the  simple  fact  that  a  right  was 
acknowledged  in  the  early  ages  of  the  church,  is  not  a 
sufficient  reason  that  it  should  be  acknowledged  through 
every  succeeding  age  of  the  church,  unless  the  ground  on 
which  it  was  founded  be  clearly  proved  to  have  been  con- 
stituted by  God  as  of  perpetual  force.     The  ground  on  which 
children  were  received  into  the  church  under  the  dispensa- 
tions  that   preceded   the   Christian   dispensation,  was   the 
atonement  of  Christ,  to  be  made  in  due  time.     Therefore, 
since  the  atonement  has  been  made,  children  should  be 


THE    GROUND    OF   INFANT    BAPTISM  221 


received  into  the  church  under  the  Christian  dispensation 
by  baptism.  Had  no  atonement  been  provided,  neither 
infants  nor  adults  could  have  been  received  into  the  church, 
for  then  no  church  could  have  been  founded;  but  since  the 
atonement  has  been  made,  all  children,  in  all  time,  have  an 
equal,  unconditional,  and  indisputable  title  to  church  mem- 
bership, which,  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  is  set  forth 
and  formally  sealed  by  baptism.  Observe,  the  covenant  of 
salvation  made  with  man  was  to  remain  in  full  force  in  all 
ages  of  time.  The  Jews  were  the^rs^  to  have  their  children 
formally  recognised  as  the  proper  subjects  both  of  salvation 
and  the  "seal  of  righteousness"  in  Christ.  Is  the  covenant 
of  Christ,  with  the  reason  of  an  external  ratifying  seal,  set 
aside  in  its  application  to  children  under  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation? Certainly  not,  since  the  covenant,  and  the 
reason  of  an  external  seal,  remain  the  same  in  all  ages.  All 
therefore  who  entertain  objections  to  infant  baptism,  express 
equal  contempt  for  circumcision,  and  oppose  G-od  himself, 
and  the  reason  on  which  he  transacts  the  affairs  of  his 
gracious  government,  under  all  the  dispensations  of  his  grace. 
Let  the  Baptists  settle  this  grave  question  with  Supreme 
Wisdom;  for  the  reason  of  things,  in  the  case  of  infant  cir- 
cumcision and  infant  baptism,  is  the  common  ground  on 
which  both  are  founded.  Baptism,  as  in  the  case  of  cir- 
cumcision, was  added  as  a  seal  after  the  covenant  of  grace 
was  made  with  man,  not  to  give  efficacy  to  the  covenant, 
or  to  strengthen  its  validity,  but  as  confirmatory  of  it. 
Thus,  children  are  not  baptized  in  order  that  they  may  be 
brought  into  covenant  with  God,  for  they  are  already  lecog- 
nised  by  God  as  his  children,  and  embraced  in  his  covenant, 
by  virtue  of  the  atonement,  and  the  promise  of  Christ,  "Of 
such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  And  hence  they  are 
solemnly  and  formally  recognised  by  baptism  as  embraced 
in  the  covenant.     As  in  the  case  of  the  adult  believer,  who 

19* 


i'2'2  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


has  not  been  baptized  in  infancy,  baptism  is  added  after  bis 
faith,  not  to  give  any  additional  efficacy  and  validity  to  the 
covenant  of  grace,  but  as  confirmatory;  so  in  the  case  of 
infants,  who  have  been  constituted  unconditional  partakers 
of  the  blessings  of  the  divine  covenant,  baptism  is  added  as 
the  formal  confirmation  of  their  title.  It  is  vain  to  dwell 
upon  the  element  of  water,  and  the  mere  external  observance, 
without  special  and  exclusive  regard  be  devoutly  and  reve- 
rently had  to  the  gracious  design  of  baptism,  since  it  is  the 
importance  of  the  thing  signified  that  gives  value  to  the  sign 
and  the  seal.  And  as  the  covenant  of  grace  is  immutable,  the 
design  of  baptism,  in  the  case  of  infants,  as  a  sign,  is  to  show 
that  they  have  been  unconditionally  made  partakers  of  the 
thing  thereby  signified.  Dying  in  infancy,  they  receive  the 
thing  signified,  without  hearing  the  word,  without  being 
taught,  and  without  faith.  Why  then  exclude  them  from  the 
sign?  If  there  was  good  reason  in  the  Divine  mind  why 
the  covenant  of  grace,  under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  should 
be  confirmed  by  an  external  seal  in  the  case  of  children,  the 
same  reason  continues  in  force  under  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion; and  hence,  it  as  effectually  secures  to  children  the 
right  to  baptism,  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  as  it 
secured  to  children  the  right  to  circumcision,  under  the 
Jewish  dispensation;  and  consequently,  children  have  as 
good  a  right  to  baptism  under  the  Christian  dispensation, 
as  children  had  to  circumcision  under  the  Jewish  dispensa- 
tion. The  difference  in  the  mode  of  acknowledging  the 
right  specified  cannot  affect  either  the  covenant  or  the 
reason. 

Infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  saved  by  free  grace,  and 
therefore  they  may  be  baptized  by  free  grace.  Free  grace 
gives  to  them  the  title  in  both  instances — invests  them  with 
equal  title  to  the  sign  and  the  substance.  Infants,  though 
in  a  passive  state,  may  be  capable  of  inheriting  an  estate ; 


THE    GROUND    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  21i3 


much  more  are  they  entitled  by  free  grace,  dying  in  infancy, 
to  heirship  with  Christ.  They  are  unconditionally  infant 
keirs  of  glory,  "  heirs  of  God,  and  joint-heirs  with  Christ" 
— and  that  too,  blessed  be  God  !  without  faith,  and  without 
fellow-suffering  with  Christ.  As,  under  the  Jewish  dispen- 
sation, circumcision  was  the  outward  seal  of  "  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith,"  and  was  applied  to  children  before  they  were 
capable  of  exercising  faith ;  so,  under  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion, as  baptism  is  the  outward  seal  of  "the  righteousness 
of  faith,"  baptism  may  be  administered  to  children  before 
they  are  capable  of  exercising  faith,  since  they  have 
righteousness  without  faith.  To  say  that  circumcision  was 
not  applied  to  any  as  a  "  seal  of  righteousness,"  but  to  those 
who  were  capable  of  exercising  faith,  is  to  deny  the  truth  of 
the  sacred  record,  for  it  was  applied  to  children  as  the  seal 
of  the  "  everlasting  covenant."  In  like  manner,  baptism 
may  be  applied  to  children  under  the  Christian  dispensation, 
since  in  their  case  the  atonement  of  Christ,  and  not  faith,  is 
indispensable  to  "  righteousness."  And,  therefore,  all  de- 
ductions unfavorable  to  infant  baptism,  drawn  from  pre- 
mises embracing  repentance  and  faith,  are  wholly  irrelevant 
to  the  case  of  infant  baptism.  The  premises  from  which  are 
deduced  the  propriety  and  validity  of  infant  baptism  are  con- 
tained in  the  death  of  Christ,  which  redeems  all  infants  from 
original  guilt,  and  therefore  their  right  to  baptism  is  at  once 
established.  Likewise,  all  objections  to  infant  baptism,  found- 
ed upon  the  unconsciousness  of  infants,  are  illogical,  since,  as 
above,  their  right  to  baptism  is  founded  upon  the  death  of 
Christ,  independently  of  their  unconsciousness.  The  pro- 
mises of  the  gospel  supply  the  obligations  to  repentance  and 
faith.  The  ground  of  salvation  is  the  ground  on  which  in- 
fants can  sustain  covenant  relations.  Consciousness,  on  the 
part  of  infants,  is  superseded  by  the  anterior  ground  merci- 
fully provided  in  the  death  of  Christ.     The  infant  dying 


224  INFANT   BAPTISM. 


in  infancy,  sustains  the  same  relations  to  the  covenant 
of  grace  unconditionally,  which  the  believer  sustains  con- 
ditionally. Thus,  the  infant,  upon  the  ground  of  previous 
relation  to  Christ,  should  be  formally  recognised  as  an  heir 
of  glory,  and  a  member  of  Christ's  church  on  earth,  by  ap- 
plying the  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  confirming  and 
sealing  unto  him  all  the  blessings  of  the  everlasting  cove- 
nant and  advantages  of  connection  with  the  Christian  church, 
as  he  may  be  able  to  receive  them,  and  imposing  upon  him 
the  duty  to  discharge  all  the  obligations  of  his  consecration 
as  they  may  rise  in  his  subsequent  life. 

The  mixed  nature  of  baptism  is  founded  upon  the  same 
ground.  Baptism  is  partly  positive  and  partly  moral.  Now 
infants  unconditionally  possess  the  primary  qualification 
which  the  design  of  baptism  requires ;  this  moral  qualifica- 
tion is  obtained  for  them  by  the  atonement  of  Christ,  with- 
out faith,  and  for  adults  by  faith :  and  hence  baptism  can 
be  no  more  withheld  from  infants  than  from  adult  believers. 
In  other  words,  the  only  barrier  to  baptism  is  moral  un- 
fitness;  but  in  the  case  of  infants  this  barrier  is  removed  by 
the  atonement  of  Christ,  and  therefore  they  are  entitled  to 
baptism. 

One  more  remark.  The  moral  qualification  of  infants  to 
receive  baptism  is  not  hereditary,  but  by  grace.  It  is  upon 
this  ground,  and  not  that  of  natural  relation  to  the  parent, 
that  all  infants,  without  exception,  whether  of  unbelieving  or 
believing  parents,  have  the  same  right  to  baptism.  More  than 
this  :  the  ties  of  grace  in  Christ,  and  not  the  ties  of  regenerat- 
ing grace  in  the  parent,  furnish  the  ground  of  infant  baptism. 
The  children  cf  believers  are  not  entitled  to  baptism  "  for 
their  fathers'  sake" — for  upon  this  ground,  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted, none  but  the  children  of  believers  would  be  entitled 
to  baptism — but  they  are  entitled  to  baptism  upon  the 
ground  of  Christ's  atonement,  and  hence  no  discrimination 


INFANTS    INCLUDED    IN   ALL    COVENANTS.  225 


is  to  be  made  upon  the  ground  of  parental  relation.  All 
infants  indiscriminately,  through  the  rich,  free,  and  en- 
larged promises  of  the  gospel,  are  invested  with  the  same 
unconditional  title  to  baptism.  No  age  or  class  is  specified, 
that  none  may  be  excluded :  all  are  included. 

Here  we  might  confidently  rest  the  validity  and  obligation 
of  infant  baptism,  but  we  proceed  to  other  arguments,  all 
of  which  are  founded  upon  the  great  principles  of  the  atone- 
ment of  Christ,  and  drawn  from  the  Scriptures. 


CHAPTER  II. 


IN  ALL   THE   COVENANTS   GOD   MADE   WITH   MAN,   IN- 
FANTS   HAVE    BEEN   INCLUDED. 

In  the  Adamic  covenant,  in  Paradise,  "in  the  beginning" 
of  the  world,  the  holy  posterity  of  our  first  parents  would 
have  been  entitled  to  all  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  of 
works,  had  Eden  continued  in  its  original  perfection  to  the 
present  time.  Under  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  which  was 
the  formal  development  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  substituted 
in  the  place  of  the  Adamic  covenant,  children  were  included, 
as  we  have  seen  in  the  preceding  chapter.  So  under  the 
Mosaic  covenant :  "Ye  stand  this  day  all  of  you  before  the 
Lord  your  God ;  your  captains  of  your  tribes,  your  elders, 
and  your  officers,  with  all  the  men  of  Israel,  your  little 
ones,  your  wives,  and  thy  stranger,  that  is  in  thy  camp, 
from  the  hewer  of  thy  wood,  unto  the  drawer  of  thy  water : 
that  thou  shouldest  enter  into  covenant  with  the  Lord  thy 
God,  and  into  his  oath,  which  the  Lord  thy  God  maketh 
with  thee  this  day."  *     And  shall  infants  be  excluded  from 

1  Peut.  xxix.  10-12. 


226  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


a  formal  recognition  of  their  rights  under  the  gospel  dispen- 
sation of  the  great  covenant  of  grace  ? — a  dispensation  which 
surpasses  all  others  in  the  extent  of  its  privileges,  the  range 
of  its  blessings,  and  the  glory  of  its  promises.  Does  the 
Christian  dispensation  contain  nothing  of  a  formal,  public 
character  for  infants  ?  Is  this  consistent  with  the  character 
of  the  "  fulness  of  times  V  Strange,  that  while  God  formally 
embraced  infants  in  every  covenant  previously  made  with 
man,  he  should  exclude  them  under  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion, which  is  the  consummation  and  confirmation  of  all 
other  dispensations  under  which  children  were  received  into 
the  church  !  Strange,  that  while  the  ground  on  which  every 
other  evangelical  dispensation  was  founded,  and  on  which 
infants  were  formally  recognised  as  the  subjects  of  salvation, 
is  the  foundation  of  the  Christian  dispensation  also,  infants 
should  be  excluded  from  the  Christian  church  !  If  it  was 
only  by  the  atonement  of  Christ,  "  finished"  on  the  cross, 
that  the  seal  of  circumcision,  and  the  hopes  of  infants,  under 
all  previous  dispensations,  were  confirmed  and  established 
for  ever,  surely  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  above  every 
other  dispensation,  infants  should  be  formally  taken  into 
covenant  with  God.  If  a  formal  recognition  of  the  spiritual 
rights  of  infants — if  a  solemn  consecration  of  infants  to  God 
— be  non-essential  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  why  did 
not  Supreme  Wisdom  dispense  with  such  recognition  and 
consecration  under  all  previous  dispensations  ?  There  is  no 
more  reason  for  omission  in  one  case  than  in  another  :  indeed, 
the  same  reason  for  their  recognition  and  consecration  is 
elemental  in  every  dispensation;  and,  therefore,  the  obliga- 
tion of  the  church  thus  to  recognise  and  consecrate  them 
to  God,  is  elemental  in  the  Christian  dispensation.  Such  is 
the  strong  foundation  of  infant  baptism  under  the  Christian 
dispensation. 


THE    CHRISTIAN    CHURCH.  227 


CHAPTER  m. 

THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH  THE   CONTINUATION   OP   THE 
OLD    TESTAMENT    CHURCH. 

We  shall  consider  the  branch  of  the  argument,  at  the 
head  of  this  chapter,  under  the  following  divisions  : — 

1.  The  church,  in  all  ages,  is  under  the  same  great  cove- 
nant of  grace,  though  it  may  be  under  different  dispensations. 

2.  Hence  the  seal  of  every  dispensation  is  a  seal  of  the 
general  covenant  of  grace. 

3.  Therefore,  baptism,  the  seal  of  the  covenant  under  the 
Christian  dispensation,  is  substituted  for  circumcision,  the 
seal  of  the  covenant  under  the  Jewish  dispensation. 

4.  Hence,  infants  ought  to  be  baptized.  These  proposi- 
tions shall  follow  in  order. 

1.  The  church,  in  all  ages,  is  under  the  same  covenant 
of  grace,  though  it  may  be  under  different  dispensations. 

(1.)  The  church  of  God  dates  its  origin,  properly  and 
formally,  at  the  call  of  Abraham,  though  before  this  time 
there  was  what  might  be  called  the  patriarchal  dispensation, 
during  which  "  men  began  to  call  upon  the  name  of  the 
Lord." 

That  the  covenant  under  the  Christian  dispensation  and 
the  Abrahamic  covenant  is  the  same,  is  evident  from  the 
following  scriptures:  "And  th^  scripture  foreseeing  that 
God  would  justify  the  heathen  through  faith,  preached  be- 
fore the  gospel  unto  Abraham,  saying,  in  thee  SHALT.  ALL 

THE  NATIONS  OF  THE    EARTH    BE    BLESSED.       So    then    they 


228  INFANT   BAPTISM. 


which  be  of  faith  are  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham."1 
That  is;  God  foreseing  that  the  Gentiles  would  need  salva- 
tion by  grace,  and  intending  to  justify  the  heathen  by  faith, 
makes  the  covenant  of  grace  with  Abraham  in  a  formal  man- 
ner, in  fulfilment  of  the  promise  made  to  Adam  in  Eden, 
and  to  be  confirmed  by  Christ  upon  the  cross.  This  com- 
prehensive view  of  the  covenant  of  grace  is  gradually  unfold- 
ed in  succeeding  ages.  The  "  everlasting  covenant,"  esta- 
blished with  Abraham,  is  first  mentioned  in  Genesis,  12th 
chapter,  and  confirmed  by  an  external  sign  in  the  17th 
chapter.  This  covenant  is  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise 
made  with  Adam,  "  the  seed  of  the  woman  shall  bruise  the 
serpent's  head,"  and  is  to  continue  through  all  ages  of  time. 
But  the  covenant  made  with  Moses  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years  later,  was  added  to  the  old  Abrahamic  covenant, 
on  account  of  the  transgressions  of  the  people,  to  show  the 
nature  of  sin,  to  restrain  from  idolatry,  and  prepare  the  way 
for  the  reception  of  the  Redeemer.  Moses's  law  was  "  added 
because  of  transgressions,  till  the  seed  should  come  to  whom 
the  promise  was  made."  2  But  Christ  being  come,  the  law  of 
Moses  that  was  added,  passes  away,  and  the  covenant  of  grace 
still  continues.  "  And  this  I  say,  that  the  covenant,  that  was 
confirmed  before  of  God,  in  Christ,  the  law  which  was  four 
hundred  and  thirty  years  after,  cannot  disannul,  that  it 
should  make  the  promise  of  none  effect." 3  Now,  from  the 
giving  of  the  law  on  Mount  Sinai,  to  the  time  when  God 
formally  made  the  covenant  of  grace  with  Abraham,  as  it  is 
stated  in  the  12th  chapter  of  Genesis,  is  precisely  four  hun- 
dred and  thirty  years — the  very  time  Paul  specifies ;  and  as 
the  adding  of  the  Mosaic  law  did  not  annul  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,  the  abolition  and  removal  of  the  Mosaic  cere- 
monial law  by  the  death  of  Christ  was  indispensable  to  the 

1  Gal.  iii.  8.  *  Gal.  iii.  19.  3  Gal.  iii.  17. 


THE    CHRISTIAN    CHURCH.  229 


establishment  of  the  covenant  of  grace  made  with  Abraham. 
Therefore,  the  Christian  church,  which  is  founded  upon  the 
death  of  Christ,  is  not  only  the  continuation,  but  the  com- 
pletion of  the  Old  Testament  church.  "  Abraham  believed 
God,  and  it  was  counted  unto  him  for  righteousness,  and  he 
received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness 
of  the  faith  which  he  had,  being  yet  uncircumcised,  that  he 
might  be  the  father  of  all  them  that  believe,  though  they  be 
not  circumcised,  that  righteousness  might  be  imputed  to 
them  also.  Therefore,  it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be  of 
grace :  to  the  end  the  promises  may  be  sure  to  all  the  seed, 
and  not  to  that  only  which  is  of  the  law,  but  to  that  also 
which  is  of  the  faith  of  Abraham,  who  is  the  father  of  us  all. 
As  it  is  written,  I  have  made  thee  a  father  of  many  na- 
tions."4 Thus,  as  the  general  covenant  included  infants 
ander  the  Abrahamic  dispensation,  and  still  contines,  it  in- 
cludes infants  under  the  Christian  dispensation. 

Again,  the  apostle  observes  "  that  the  Gentiles  should  be 
fellow-heirs  and  of  the  same  body,  and.  partakers  of  his  pro- 
mises in  Christ  by  the  gospel."5  And  again:  "He  is  our 
peace,  who  hath  broken  down  the  middle  icall  of  partition 
between  us,  that  he  might  make  in  himself  of  twain,  one  neio 
man,  and  reconcile  both  unto  God  in  one  body  by  the 
cross."  6  And  again  :  "  Therefore,  ye  are  no  more  strangers 
and  foreigners,  but  fellow-citizens  with  the  saints,  and  of 
the  household  of  God ;  and  are  built  upon  the  foundation  of 
the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being 
the  chief  corner-stone."7  Here  the  apostle  declares 
that  "  the  household,"  "  the  body,"  "  the  building,"  "  the 
commonwealth,"  are  not  completed  till  the  Christian  church 
is  constituted,  and  the  foundation  and  corner-stone  of  the 
whole  building  laid  down  by  Christ  and  his  apostles.     The 


4  Rom.  iv.        5  Eph.  iii.  6.        6  Eph.  ii.  14,  16.        7  Ibid.  ii.  19, 
20 


230  INFANT   BAPTISM. 


old  scaffolding  is  now  taken  down,  and  the  church  stands 
forth  in  its  original  design,  finished,  perfect,  immutable, 
majestic. 

Therefore,  when  the  believing  Jews,  in  the  days  of  Christ, 
entered  into  the  Christian  church,  they  changed  not  their 
church  relations.  They  merely  passed  from  the  "rudi- 
ments/' as  taught  by  the  ceremonial  law,  to  the  possession 
of  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  as  taught  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles.  They  embraced  Christ,  who  by  consummating  and 
abolishing  the  ceremonial  law,  became  the  foundation  of  the 
Christian  church.  Therefore,  AS  they  never  left  their 
church,  their  children  cannot  be  excluded  from  the  Chris- 
tian church.  The  ceremonial  law  was  the  "  partition  wall" 
between  the  Jewish  and  Christian  dispensations,  and  conse- 
quently, the  breaking  down  of  this  dividing  wall  secured 
the  enlargement  of  the  Jewish  church,  and  its  oneness  with 
the  Christian  church.  And  as  the  whole  is  greater  than  a 
part,  not  only  the  Jews,  but  Gentiles,  with  their  children, 
are  entitled  to  the  immunities  and  blessings  of  the  ever- 
lasting covenant.  By  a  masterly  stroke  of  Divine  power 
and  wisdom,  Christ  in  his  death  perpetuates  the  title  of 
Jewish  children  to  church  membership,  and  introduces  the 
children  of  G-entile  parents  also  into  the  general  church  of 
God  under  the  Christian  dispensation. 

On  this  ground  no  change  is  made  in  the  relations  of  the 
believing  Jews.  They  continue  as  the  true  church,  and  still 
are  called  "the  household/'  "the  citizens,"  "the  common- 
wealth" of  God.  They  that  believe  continue  "the  branches," 
"the  building,"  "the  city,"  "the  members,"  "the  house- 
hold" of  faith.  The  change  is  made  in  the  condition  of  the 
Gentiles.  These,  as  "far  off,"  as  "aliens"  and  "strangers," 
are  '•brought  nigh,"  and  made  "fellow-citizens  with  the 
samts."  The  change  in  the  condition  of  the  Gentiles  is 
absolute,  universal,  and  essential.     It  was  for  this  very  pur- 


THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH,  OBS :  231 

pose  that  the  Jews  were  originally  called  and  constituted  as 
the  church  of  God,  that  the  Gentiles  also  might  be  gathered 
into  the  same  great  church,  and  "be  builded  together  for  a 
habitation  of  God  by  the  Spirit,"  and  consequently,  that 
their  children  might  be  entitled  to  the  same  church  relations. 
To  continue  the  argument: — "Thou  (the  Christian  church) 
bearest  not  the  root,  but  THE  ROOT  thee."  8  If  the  Jew- 
ish and  Christian  churches  are  not  integral  parts  of  the  same 
great  church,  then  there  is  no  force  in  the  figure  used  in  the 
text:  the  meaning  is,  the  Jewish  and  Christian  churches 
are  as  much  integral  parts  of  the  same  great  church  as  the  root 
and  trunk  are  integral  parts  of  the  same  tree.  Again :  "  For 
if  thou  (the  Gentile  church)  wert  cut  out  of  the  olive  tree, 
which  is  wild  by  nature,  and  wert  graffed  contrary  to  nature 
into  a  good  olive  tree;  how  much  more  shall  these  (Jews) 
which  be  the  natural  branches,  be  graffed  into  their  own 
olive  tree."9  Our  Baptist  brethren  themselves  admit 
that  the  Old  Testament  church  is  here  represented,  and  that 
the  church  of  God,  the  tree,  planted  in  the  days  of  Abra- 
ham, though  mutilated  by  a  thousand  storms,  still  lives,  and 
the  "natural  branches"  are  yet  to  be  graffed  into  its  trunk 
again,  and  constitute  its  crowning  glories.  But  children 
were  the  young  natural  branches  of  this  tree  under  the  Jew- 
ish dispensation;  and  when  it  was  first  planted,  they  were 
graffed  into  it  with  their  parents,  according  to  the  positive 
command  of  God.  Now  until  this  command  be  positively 
and  expressly  repealed,  they  are  entitled,  in  all  ages  of  the 
Christian  church,  to  be  graffed  by  baptism  into  the  same 
tree.  Indeed,  so  far  from  being  invested  with  the  right  to 
deny  them  this  privilege,  it  is  our  solemn  duty  to  continue 
it  unto  them.  The  covenant  is  not  changed,  the  outward 
seal  only  is  changed,  and  the  change  of  the  seal  effects  no 

8  Rom.  xi.  18.  9  Ibid.  xi. 


232  INFANT   BAPTISM. 


modification  in  the  covenant.  Hence,  it  is  as  just,  as  wise, 
as  reasonable,  as  proper,  as  desirable,  that  children  be  now 
associated  with  the  church  by  baptism,  as  it  was  that  they 
should  be  associated  with  the  church  formerly  by  circum- 
cision. The  perpetuity  of  the  covenant  secures  the  identity 
of  the  church  under  every  dispensation,  and  consequently, 
it  secures  also  the  continuation  of  the  religious  privileges  of 
children  through  all  time.  You  ask  for  positive  warrant  in 
the  New  Testament  for  the  church  membership  of  children — 
and  I  direct  your  attention  to  the  identity  of  the  church, 
under  all  dispensations,  and  under  both  Testaments,  and  to 
the  positive  enactment  made  by  Jehovah  two  thousand  years 
before  the  New  Testament  was  written,  by  which  children 
were  explicitly  and  formally  associated  with  the  church,  and 
which,  never  having  been  explicitly  and  positively  revoked, 
remains  as  effectually  in  force,  under  the  New  Testament 
dispensation,  as  it  was  under  the  Old,  when  the  church  of 
God  was  first  organized.  Without  repeal,  there  can  be  no 
exclusion — and  there  can  be  no  repeal  under  the  dispensa- 
tions of  free  grace,  until  the  ground  of  infant  salvation,  the 
atonement  of  Christ,  be  changed;  and  consequently,  as  "the 
word  of  the  Lord  standeth  for  ever,"  the  religious  privileges 
of  infants  must  continue  for  ever.  With  this  immutable 
and  eternal  foundation  of  infant  baptism  before  us,  and  the 
consequent  continuation  of  religious  privileges  to  children 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  world,  the  Baptists,  so 
far  from  having  any  right  to  call  upon  us  for  positive  and 
explicit  enactment  in  the  New  Testament  respecting  the  right 
of  infants  to  baptism,  are  themselves  called  upon  to  produce 
a  positive  repeal  of  their  original  right  to  church  mem- 
bership. The  silence  of  the  New  Testament,  if  it  were  wholly 
silent  on  the  subject,  would  be  a  positive  confirmation  of  the 
rights  of  children  as  they  were  specified  in  the  covenant  of 
grace  at  tne  beginning. 


THE    CHRISTIAN    CHURCH,  ETC.  233 

The  Apostle  Paul,  in  the  tenth  chapter  to  the  Romans, 
\fter  having  removed,  in  the  preceding  chapters,  every  ob- 
jection brought  by  the  Jews  against  the  gospel  in  preference 
to  their  law,  now  sets  aside  the  further  evasion  that  they 
had  not  had  preachers  of  the  doctrine  of  salvation  by  faith, 
by  showing  that  the  gospel  had  been  preached  to  them  under 
the  Old  Testament  dispensation.  He  introduces  the  Jew 
as  inquiring,  "  How  shall  they  call  on  him  in  whom  they 
have  not  believed  ?  and  how  shall  they  believe  in  him  of 
whom  they  have  not  heard?  and  how  shall  they  hear  with- 
out a  preacher?  and  how  shall  they  preach  except  they  be 
sent?';  But  Paul  replies,  "Have  they  not  heard?  Yes, 
verily,  their  sound  went  into  all  the  earth,  and  their  words 
to  the  end  of  the  world.  But  to  Israel  he  saith,  all  day 
long  I  have  stretched  forth  my  hands  to  a  disobedient  and 
gainsaying  people."  Here  the  apostle  shows  that  the  gospel 
is  not  only  the  doctrine  of  every  dispensation,  but  the  com- 
mon property  of  the  world,  and  that  the  Jews  had  a  special 
interest  in  it.  The  fact  that  the  Jews  disbelieved  that  the 
prophecies  were  accomplished  in  Christ,  and  their  con- 
sequent rejection  of  him,  are  no  proofs  that  the  gospel 
was  not  preached  unto  them  under  the  Old  Testament  dis- 
pensation. 

Compare  Amos  ix.  11,  12,  with  Acts  xv.  14-17,  "In 
that  day  I  will  raise  up  the  tabernacle  of  David  that  is 
fallen,  and  close  up  the  breaches  thereof:  and  I  will  raise 
up  his  ruins,  and  I  will  build  it  as  in  the  days  of  old :  that 
they  may  possess  the  remnant  of  Edom,  and  of  all  the 
heathen,  which  are  called  by  my  name,  saith  the  Lord  that 
doeth  this."  The  inspired  interpretation  of  this  prophecy 
of  Amos  is,  "  Simon  hath  declared  how  G-od  at  the  first  did 
visit  the  Gentiles,  to  take  out  of  them  a  people  for  his  name. ' 
And  to  this  agree  the  words  of  the  prophets;  as  it  is  written, 
After  this  I  will  return,  and  will  build  again  the  tabernacle 
20* 


234  INFANT   BAPTISM. 


of  David,  which  is  fallen  down;  and  I  will  build  again  the 
ruins  thereof,  and  I  will  set  it  up,  that  the  residue  of  men 
might  seek  after  the  Lord,  who  doeth  all  these  things/' 
Acts  xv.  14-17. 

In  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  lest  they  should  .hink  he 
proclaimed  a  new  doctrine,  the  apostle  declared  that  Chris- 
tianity was  but  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy,  "  which  God  had 
promised  afore  by  his  prophets  in  the  holy  scriptures/' 
Rom.  i.  2.  Before  Festus,  Paul  also  pleads  the  antiquity  of 
the  gospel,  and  identifies  it  with  u  the  things"  foretold  by 
Moses  and  the  prophets :  "I  continue  unto  this  day,  witness- 
ing both  to  small  and  great,  saying  none  other  things  than 
those  which  the  prophets  and  Moses  did  say  should  come/' 
Acts  xxvi.  22.  Many  other  scriptures  might  be  quoted  in 
proof  of  the  identity  of  the  church  under  every  dispensa- 
tion of  the  covenant;  such  as  "Abraham  rejoiced  to  see 
Christ's  day:  he  saw  it,  and  was  glad;"10  "the  kingdom 
of  God  shall  be  taken  from  you  (the  Jews)  and  given  to  a 
nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof;"  "  "  he  will  come 
and  destroy  the  husbandman,  and  give  the  vineyard  unto 
others :"  u  but  we  suppose  it  unnecessary  to  multiply  quo- 
tations any  further  to  prove  a  point  so  clearly  exhibited  in 
every  part  of  the  sacred  records,  and  to  which  we  shall  soon 
return  in  the  course  of  this  argument. 

(2.)  The  church  is  the  same  in  all  ages,  since  in  its 
organization  it  possesses  the  same  Divine  Head;  the  same 
moral  law;  the  same  gospel;  the  same  precious  promises; 
the  same  spiritual  design;  the  same  atoning  blood;  the 
same  Mediator;  the  same  sanctifying  Spirit;  and  the  same 
doctrines — repentance,  faith,  justification,  regeneration, 
sanctification,  the  witness  of  the  Spirit,  the  resurrection,  the 
general  judgment,  and  the  sanctions  of  rewards  and  punish- 

10  John  viii.  56.  »  Matt.  xxi.  43.  »2  Mark  xii.  9. 


etc.  235 

merits.  " Think  not,"  says  Christ,  "that  I  am  come  to 
destroy  the  law,  or  the  prophets;  I  am  not  come  to  destroy, 
but  to  fulfil" — izXripwGat — -plerosai — to  complete,  to  make 
perfect.  The  church  of  Christ  began  with  the  first  soul 
saved  in  the  fallen  world,  and  was  designed  to  embrace  all 
men,  and  extend  through  all  time.  It  is  founded  upon  the 
redemptive  principle,  and  the  redemptive  principle  is  applica- 
ble to  every  case.  The  process  in  the  development  of  this 
great  principle,  Christ  perfected  or  consummated  by  his 
death,  and  hence  the  church,  founded  upon  this  principle, 
is  the  same  in  all  ages  of  time  and  periods  of  eternity.  The 
Jews  themselves,  under  the  Levitical  and  prophetical  dis- 
pensation, were  saved  upon  the  redemptive  principle,  and 
their  faith  in  Christ  to  come  was  established  by  his  death, 
and  after  his  death  he  commissioned  his  apostles  to  proclaim 
the  applicability  of  this  principle  to  "all  nations."  And  so 
they  did.  "Is  he  the  God  of  the  Jews  only?  Is  he  not 
also  the  God  of  the  Gentiles?  Yes,  of  the  Gentiles  also;" 
for  he  is  "no  respecter  of  persons."  And  the  time  will 
come  when  the  Jews  shall  be  converted  and  restored — what 
then  shall  become  of  their  children?  Jeremiah  answers  this 
question :  "  Their  children  also  shall  be  as  aforetime."  Jer. 
xxx.  20.  That  is,  shall  be  formally  recognised  by  baptism 
as  embraced  in  the  everlasting  covenant  under  the  Christian 
dispensation,  as  they  were  formally  recognised  by  circum- 
cision as  embraced  in  the  covenant  under  the  Jewish  dis- 
pensation. Indeed,  as  Christ,  the  great  Antetype,  fulfilled 
in  himself  all  the  preceding  types,  he  must  still  preserve  in 
himself  substantially  the  gracious  import  of  all  the  types, 
and  so  perpetuate  the  spiritual  nature  of  the  Old  Testament 
church.  Many  things,  it  is  true,  under  the  old  dispensation, 
were  instituted  for  a  limited  period,  and  many  were  dimly 
revealed,  but  the  elements  of  identity  we  have  mentioned 
are  essential  to  the  plan  of  salvation,  and  immutable,  and 


236  INFANT   BAPTISM. 


hence  secure  to  children  the  right  to  church  membership  to 
the  end  of  time.  True  also,  the  privileges  of  the  church 
under  the  Christian  dispensation,  are  greatly  enlarged,  but 
the  accession  does  not  destroy  the  identity  of  the  church, 
any  more  than  an  accession  of  rights  and  immunities  destroys 
the  identity  of  a  city,  corporation,  or  nation.  While  the 
death  of  Christ  consummated,  and  therefore  set  aside,  many 
divine  appointments  and  ceremonial  services  of  the  Jewish 
church  as  of  no  more  use,  it  at  the  same  time  laid  the  founda- 
tion for  the  enlargement  of  the  privileges,  without  affecting 
the  identity  of  the  church. 

Thus,  the  original  constitution  of  the  church  embraced 
children  as  church  members,  and  as  that  constitution  remains 
in  all  its  essential  parts  the  same  in  all  time;  and  as 
certain  ceremonial  laws,  in  no  respect  interfering  with  the 
spiritual  rights  of  children,  have  been  annulled,  therefore 
children  under  the  same  general  covenant  are  entitled  to 
church  membership  under  the  Christian  dispensation.  We 
pass  now  to  the  second  consideration  in  the  general  argument. 

2.  Hence,  the  seal  of  every  dispensation  of  the  covenant 
is  a  seal  of  the  general  covenant  of  grace. 

(1.)  Such  was  the  character  of  circumcision  as  a  seal. 
The  covenant  made  with  Abraham  and  his  posterity,  the 
Jewish  people,  is  partly  spiritual,  and  partly  temporal.  It 
is  not  specified,  that  circumcision  was  the  seal  of  that  part 
of  the  covenant  only  which  referred  to  temporal  blessings, 
but  of  the  whole  covenant ;  and  consequently  it  referred  also 
to  the  spiritual  blessings  embraced  in  the  covenant.  This 
twofold  covenant  has  but  one  seal,  viz.  circumcision:  cir- 
cumcision, therefore,  was  the  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  and  consequently  identified 
the  Jewish  with  the  general  Church  of  God.  It  is  objected, 
that  "circumcision  was  the  external  seal  of  the  national 
covenant,  but  not  of  the  spiritual,  and  hence  cannot  be  a 


THE    SEAL,  ETC.  237 


seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace."  Then,  in  the  first  place,  the 
spiritual  covenant  with  Abraham  was  without  an  external 
seal,  which  is  contrary  to  the  positive  institution  of  God. 
Secondly.  God  made  no  difference  between  the  children  of 
Abraham,  and  the  children  of  Ishmael.  u  And  Abraham 
took  Ishmael,  his  son,  and  all  that  were  born  in  his  house, 
and  all  that  were  bought  with  money,  every  male,  and  cir- 
cumcised the  flesh  of  their  foreskin,  in  the  selfsame  day,  as 
God  had  said  unto  him" — and  yet  not  one  of  these  ever 
possessed  any  portion  of  Canaan,  according  to  the  provisions 
of  the  temporal  covenant;  and  consequently,  unless  circum- 
cision had  respect  to  spiritual  blessings,  it  secured  no  privi- 
leges at  all  to  these  persons.  And  subsequently,  the  children 
of  Esau  received  the  seal  of  circumcision,  by  which  they 
possessed  a  title  to  the  spiritual  blessings  of  the  covenant, 
though  they  were  excluded  from  a  participation  in  the  tem- 
poral blessings  of  the  covenant:  they  never  possessed  the 
promised  land.  Now  if  the  children  of  Ishmael  and  Esau, 
who  were  the  posterity  of  Abraham,  were  excluded  from  the 
temporal  blessings  of  the  covenant,  and  yet  were  circumcised, 
certainly  circumcision  was  more  than  a  national  seal. 

As  they  never  obtained  the  temporal  blessings,  nor  enjoyed 
the  national  privileges,  to  which  circumcision  entitled  the 
descendants  of  Jacob,  therefore,  circumcision  in  their  case, 
was  a  seal  of  the  spiritual  covenant  of  God  with  Abraham. 
In  the  case  of  the  sons  of  Jacob,  it  was  both  national  and 
spiritual;  and  as  a  national  seal,  therefore,  Moses  repeated  it 
just  before  the  Israelites  entered  the  land  of  promise,  to 
which  their  title  was  now  confirmed. 

Thirdly.  The  sons  of  the  stranger  also  received  the  seal  of 
the  covenant.  The  Gentiles  could  not  derive  any  spiritual 
privileges  till  they  had  received  the  sign  of  the  covenant. 
"Also  the  sons  of  the  stranger,  that  join  themselves  to  the 
Lord  to  serve  him,  every  one  that  taketh  hold  of  my  cove- 


238  INFANT   BAPTISM. 


nant,  will  I  bring  to  my  holy  mountain/'  &C.13  Reference 
evidently  is  here  made  to  the  obligations  connected  with  the 
ancient  initiatory  sacrament  of  the  Jewish  church,  the  ex- 
ternal seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace;  for  it  is  matter  of  ex- 
plicit enactment,  that  the  Jews,  and  not  the  Gentiles,  should 
derive  temporal  advantages,  as  well  as  spiritual,  under  the 
covenant  made  with  Abraham. 

Fourthly.  Circumcision  was  the  seal  of  the  covenant  in 
which  "all  the  families  of  the  earth  were  to  be  blessed." 
It  is  inconceivable  how  this  promise  can  be  understood  in  a 
temporal  sense.  It  must  have  extended  further  than  to  the 
inhabitants  and  temporal  blessings  of  Canaan.  It  is  im- 
possible for  the  whole  world  to  dwell  in  Canaan,  as  also 
impossible  for  Canaan  to  distribute  temporal  blessings 
throughout  the  world.  Indeed  the  Jews  became  the  agents 
of  terrible  and  destructive  calamities  to  surrounding  nations. 
And  hence  this  promise  is  to  be  understood  in  a  spiritual 
sense ;  and  consequently  circumcision,  the  seal  of  the  Jew- 
ish dispensation,  was  a  seal  of  the  general  covenant  of 
grace. 

Fifthly.  "What  profit  is  there  of  circumcision?  Much 
every  way  ;  chiefly  that  because  unto  them  were  committed 
the  oracles  of  God." 14  That  is,  circumcision  entitled  both 
Jew  and  Gentile  to  all  the  advantages  connected  with  the 
possession  of  the  sacred  oracles — the  revelation  of  the  Divine 
will  made  to  Moses  and  the  prophets  respecting  the  covenant 
of  grace  and  the  Messiah; — and  surely  these  inestimable 
spiritual  advantages  cannot  be  confounded  with  the  earthly 
Canaan. 

Sixthly.  That  circumcision  had  special  reference  to  the 
obedience  of  the  law,  the  Apostle  Paul  expressly  declares : 
" Circumcision  verily  profiteth  if  thou  keep  the  law;  but  if 

B  Isa.  lvi.  6,  7.  M  Rom.  iii.  1,  2. 


THE    SEAL,  ETC.  239 


thou  be  a  breaker  of  the  law,  thy  circumcision  is  made  un- 
circumcision."  15 

Seventhly.  The  apostle  evidently  refers  to  the  spiritual 
design  of  circumcision,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  in 
which  he  concludes,  that  they  were  "  without  Christ,  being 
aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  having  no  hope, 
and  without  God  in  the  world,"  "  at  the  time,  when  they 
were  of  the  "  circumcision,"  and  "  Gentiles  in  the  flesh." 
But  now  "  being  made  nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christ,"  and  cir- 
cumcision, the  original  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith, 
being  superseded  by  baptism,  it  is  evident  that  circumcision 
under  the  Jewish  dispensation  has  the  same  spiritual  re- 
ference that  baptism  has  under  the  Christian  dispensation. 

Eighthly.  The  apostle  confirms  this  view :  "  For  he  is  not 
a  Jew  who  is  one  outwardly;  neither  is  that  circumcision 
which  is  outward  in  the  flesh;  but  he  is  a  Jew  who  is  one 
inwardly;  and  circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the 
spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter,  whose  praise  is  not  of  men  but 
of  God."  That  is,  circumcision  as  an  outward  mark,  not 
only  had  a  national  meaning,  but  a  spiritual  sense,  and  as 
such  was  a  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace  under  the  Jewish 
dispensation. 

Ninthly.  While  the  covenant  of  grace  made  with  Abraham 
principally  referred  to  spiritual  blessings,  and  was  so  under- 
stood by  the  Fathers,  it  also  embraced  supplemental  promises 
referring  to  the  possession  of  the  land  of  Canaan.  In  view 
of  the  scope  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  the  range  of  tem- 
poral blessings  secured  to  the  Jews  under  that  covenant  in 
addition  to  spiritual  blessings,  circumcision  was  constituted 
the  ratifying  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  the  promise 
of  the  earthly  Canaan  conjointly,  but  principally  referred  to 
spiritual  advantages. 

15  Rom.  ii.  25. 


240  INFANT   BAPTISM. 


Tenthly.  The  infant  Jesus  at  eight  days  old,  was  solemnly 
recognised  as  a  member  of  the  Jewish  Church — and  yet  he 
never  possessed  a  foot  of  the  promised  land — he  had  not 
where  to  lay  his  head.     His  kingdom  was  not  of  this  world. 

Eleventh.  Circumcision  signified  a  belief  in  the  promises 
of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  hence  had  reference  to  spiritual 
blessings.  These  promises  referred  to  Christ,  "the  seed  of 
Abraham/'  as  yet  to  come,  and  hence  the  well-known  and 
continued  expectation  of  the  Jews  of  their  promised  Messiah.16 

Twelfth.  That  circumcision  was  the  seal  of  the  general 
covenant  of  grace,  is  proved  from  the  following  circum- 
stances. 1.  Circumcision  was  a  seal  binding  on  the  part  of 
the  Jews,  to  believe  in  Christ  to  come,  and  on  the  part  of 
God,  to  fulfil  his  promises  respecting  the  Messiah,  in  his 
own  time,  by  revealing  him  to  the  world.  Hence,  upon  the 
advent  of  Christ,  the  covenant  was  confirmed  and  fulfilled, 
and  circumcision,  as  a  seal,  was  no  longer  necessary.  2.  If 
after  the  coming  and  manifestation  of  Christ,  circumcision 
had  been  continued,  it  would  have  implied  a  rejection  of  the 
covenant  made  with  Adam,  Abraham,  and  all  mankind  in 
Christ  Jesus:  "Behold,  I  Paul  say  unto  you,  that  if  ye  be 
circumcised,  Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing.  For  I  testify 
again  to  every  man  that  is  circumcised,  that  he  is  a  debtor 
to  do  the  whole  law.  Christ  is  become  of  none  effect  unto 
you,  whosoever  of  you  are  justified  by  the  law;  ye  are  fallen 
from  grace.' ' 17  That  is,  the  covenant  of  grace  being  fulfilled 
on  the  coming  of  Christ,  it  was  to  continue  in  full  force 
through  all  time,  and  as  circumcision  distinguished  the  Jews 
as  the  peculiar  people  of  G-od,  as  well  as  sealed  their  title  to 
the  land  of  Canaan,  on  the  manifestation  of  Christ,  the  con- 

16  And  so  the  baptism  of  John  imposed  the  obligation  "to  believe  in 
him  who  should  come,"  and  thus  the  dispensations  of  Moses  and  John, 
in  this  respect,  were  the  same,  though  the  outward  seals  were  different. 

«  Gal.  v.  2-4. 


THE    SEAL,  ETC.  241 


firmed  covenant  of  salvation  was  to  be  "made  known  to  all 
nations,  for  the  obedience  of  faith/'  according  to  the  promise 
made  to  Abraham — the  peculiar  rights  of  the  Jews  being 
now  merged  in  the  common  participation  of  the  universal 
provisions  of  salvation — which  at  once  connects  the  Jews 
with  the  great  covenant  of  mercy  in  Christ  Jesus.  Thus, 
circumcision  was  not  only  a  national  seal,  but  typical  and 
spiritual  in  its  chief  importance;  and  hence  under  the  Jew- 
ish dispensation,  it  was  the  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace. 

(2.)  Such  is  the  character  of  baptism. 

It  remains  now  to  show,  that  the  church  after  the  coming 
of  Christ,  to  the  end  of  the  world,  is  under  the  same  great 
covenant  of  grace,  and  that  baptism  is  the  external  seal  of  it. 
Our  work  here  is  easy  and  brief.  That  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation is  a  dispensation  of  the  grace  of  God,  and  that 
baptism  is  its  outward  seal,  none  will  deny.  Christ,  in  a 
few  words,  settles  the  whole  matter.  Consider  the  gospel 
commission — the  scope  of  it:  "the  whole  world."  The 
duration  of  it :  "  lo !  I  am  with  you  always,  even  to  the  end 
of  the  world/'  And  the  external  seal  of  it:  "baptizing  in 
the  name,"  &c.  Hence,  baptism  as  the  outward  seal  of  the 
Christian  dispensation,  is  the  external  seal  of  the  same  cove- 
nant of  grace  of  which  circumcision  was  the  external  seal 
under  the  Jewish  dispensation. 

Tn  reply  to  the  conclusion  that  the  covenant  of  grace 
made  with  Abraham,  is  the  same  in  all  ages  of  time,  the 
Baptists  assume,  that  the  repetitions  of  this  covenant  in  the 
12th,  15th,  and  17th  chapters  of  Genesis,  are  not  repetitions, 
but  so  many  distinct  covenants.     We  answer ; 

First.  Whatever  distinctions  existed,  or  additions  were 
made,  in  the  repetitions  of  the  covenant,  they  all  included 
spiritual  blessings,  and  so  the  original  seal  of  circumcision 
was  applicable  to  all. 

Secondly.  Such  an  assumption  destroys  the  ground  of 
21 


242 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


justification  by  faith.  The  Si?iai  covenant  was  entered 
into  430  years  after  the  covenant  which  was  made  with 
Abraham.  The  Apostle  Paul,  in  his  Epistles  to  the  Ro- 
mans and  Galatians,  argues  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible, 
from  the  beginning,  is  justification  by  faith;  and  he  selects, 
as  a  most  promising  and  convincing  example,  the  case  of 
Abraham.  He  shows,  that  Abraham  was  justified,  nrt  on 
the  footing  of  the  law,  but  under  the  covenant  made  with 
him  430  years  before  the  law  was  given.  As  the  covenant 
is  entirely  distinct  from  the  law,  the  argument  is  conclusive, 
that  circumcision  was  the  seal  of  the  covenant ;  but  upon  the 
ground  assumed  by  the  Baptists,  the  law  was  co-eval  with 
the  covenant,  though  Paul  aflirms  that  the  law  was  given 
430  years  after  the  covenant — and  this  covenant,  he  says,  is 
the  gospel  covenant. 

Thirdly.  The  covenant  recorded  in  the  17th  chapter  of 
Genesis,  it  is  alleged,  was  a  covenant  of  temporal  blessings 
only;  and  to  this  covenant,  and  not  to  that  made  with  Abra- 
ham, in  the  12th  chapter,  was  the  seal  of  circumcision 
annexed.  Let  us  see.  In  the  12th  chapter  it  is  stated: 
"  Now  the  Lord  said  to  Abraham,  get  thee  out  of  thy  country, 
and  from  thy  kindred,  and  from  thy  father's  house,  into  a 
land  that  I  will  show  thee :  and  I  will  make  of  thee  a  great 
nation,  and  I  will  bless  thee,  and  make  thy  name  great; 
and  thou  shalt  be  a  blessing :  and  I  will  bless  them  that 
bless  thee,  and  curse  him  that  curseth  thee:  and  in  thee 
shall  all  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  Xow  this  cove- 
nant, which  is  supposed  to  be  one  of  temporal  blessings  only, 
is  the  very  covenant  which  the  Apostle  Paul  distinctly  and 
frequently  quotes  in  the  New  Testament,  with  a  spiritual  in- 
terpretation, Compare  Gen.  xvii.  4,  5,  with  Rom.  iv.  16, 17 : 
"As  for  me,  behold  my  covenant  is  with  thee,  and  thou 
shalt  be  a  father  of  many  nations.  Neither  shall  thy  name 
be  called  any  more  Abram,  but  thy  name  shall  be  Abraham ; 


THE    SEAL,  ETC.  243 


for  a  father  of  many  nations  have  I  made  thee."  Gen.  xvii. 
4,  5.  "Therefore  it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be  by  grace; 
to  the  eiid  the  promise  might  be  sure  to  all  the  seed,  not  to 
that  only  which  is  of  the  law,  but  to  that  also  which  is  of 
the  faith  of  Abraham,  who  is  the  father  of  us  all,  (as  it  is 
written,  I  have  made  thee  a  father  of  many  nations,")  &c. 
Bom.  iv.  16, 17.  Jesus  himself  sustains  this  interpretation  : 
"But  as  touching  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  have  ye  not 
read  that  which  was  spoken  to  you  by  God,  saying,  I  am 
the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God 
of  Jacob?  God  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the 
living."  Matt.  xxii.  31,  32.  And  Paul  confirms  the  po- 
sition: "These  all  died  in  the  faith;  not  having  received 
the  promises,  but  having  seen  them  afar  off,  and  were  per- 
suaded of  them,  and  embraced  them,  and  confessed  that 
they  were  strangers  and  pilgrims  on  earth.  For  they  that 
say  such  things  declare  plainly  that  they  seek  a  country. 
And  truly,  if  they  had  been  mindful  of  that  country  from 
whence  they  came  out,  they  might  have  had  opportunity  to 
have  returned :  but  now,  as  they  desire  a  better  country, 
that  is,  a  heavenly :  wherefore,  God  is  not  ashamed  to  be 
called  their  God;  for  he  hath  prepared  for  them  a  city." 
Heb.  xi.  13-16.  Here  is  reference  made  to  a  spiritual  and 
eternal  inheritance;  and  therefore,  if  the  covenant  made 
with  Abraham  in  the  17th  chapter  did  not  embrace  any 
thing  more  than  a  temporal  inheritance,  no  promise  of  a 
spiritual  and  eternal  inheritance  was  ever  made  at  all  to 
Abraham,  and  the  faith  and  hope  of  the  patriarchs  were 
vain.  The  ancient  land  of  Canaan  was  not  the  promised 
country  to  which  they  looked,  for  "by  faith  Abraham 
sojourned  in  the  land  of  promise,  as  in  a  strange  country, 
dwelling  in  tabernacles  with  Isaac  and  Jacob,  the  heirs  with 
him  of  the  same  promise:  for  he  looked  for  a  city  which 
hath  foundations,  whoso  builder  and  maker  is  God."  Heb. 


vu 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


xi.  9,  10.  And  the  apostle  represents  the  patriarchs  as 
having  "no  inheritance  in  it,  (the  land  of  Canaan,)  no  not  so 
much  as  to  set  their  foot  on:"  and  yet,  "through  faith  and 
patience  they  inherited  the  promises."  This  is  the  covenant 
which  the  Baptists  have  degraded  to  a  covenant  of  temporal 
promises !  This  is  the  covenant  which  Paul  by  inspiration 
declares  to  have  been  the  covenant  of  grace,  "confirmed 
before  of  God  in  Christ"  and  to  which  the  seal  of  circum- 
cision was  annexed.  In  a  word,  no  new  covenant  of  grace 
is  made  or  referred  to  in  the  New  Testament;  the  revelation 
of  the  great  covenant  of  grace  is  made  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  the  Xew  Testament  discloses  the  great  facts  of  fulfilment 
and  confirmation;  and  therefore,  the  church  being  under 
the  same  covenant  in  all  ages,  the  seal  of  every  dis- 
pensation of  the  covenant  must  be  the  seal  of  the  general 
covenant. 

3.  Therefore,  baptism,  the  seal  of  the  general  covenant 
under  the  Christian  dispensation,  is  substituted  for  circum- 
cision, the  seal  of  the  general  covenant,  under  the  Jewish 
dispensation. 

(1.)  As  circumcision  was  the  seal  of  the  covenant  of 
grace  under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  and  as  baptism  was 
appointed  by  Christ  as  the  seal  of  the  same  covenant,  under 
the  Christian  dispensation,  therefore,  in  the  change  of  dis- 
pensations, circumcision  being  abolished,  and  baptism 
enjoined,  baptism  must  be  substituted  for  circumcision. 
"  When  the  covenant  of  grace,  in  its  ancient  form,  was  done 
away  in  Christ,  then  the  old  sign  and  seal  peculiar  to  that 
form  was  by  consequence  abolished.  If  then  baptism  be 
not  the  initiatory  sign  and  seal  of  the  same  covenant,  in  its 
new  and  perfect  form,  as  circumcision  was  of  the  old,  this 
new  covenant  has  no  such  initiatory  rite  or  sacrament  at  all; 
since  the  Lord's  supper  is  not  initiatory,  but,  like  the  sacri- 


THE    SEAL,  ETC.  245 


fices  of  old,  is  of  regular  and  habitual  observance. " 18  A 
seal  is  a  sensible  sign,  that  indicates  a  formal  and  more 
solemn  consent  of  both  parties  to  a  thing  agreed  upon  be- 
tween them,  than  could  have  been  expressed  in  mere  words 
— making  the  contract  or  promise  more  sure  and  binding, 
if  possible,  on  both  parties.  Thus,  if  a  seal  have  reference 
to  a  deed,  it  identifies  and  authenticates  it  as  his  who  pro- 
fesses to  be  its  author,  and  holds  him  to  the  full  performance 
of  all  its  requisitions ;  if  it  refer  to  a  promise,  it  binds  the 
author  to  its  fulfilment ;  if  it  refer  to  commands,  it  carries 
along  with  it  the  authority  of  their  author.  The  form  of 
the  seal  may  be  changed  by  the  authorized  party,  without 
in  any  respect  changing  the  scope  of  the  original  deed,  or 
the  sacredness  of  the  original  promise,  or  the  authority  of 
the  original  commands,  or  the  obligation  and  relation  of  the 
original  parties.  Thus,  the  form  of  the  seal  under  the 
Christian  dispensation,  may  be  different  from  that  under  the 
Jewish  dispensation,  without  in  any  respect  materially  af- 
fecting the  relation  or  connection  between  the  contracting 
parties.  And  thus  it  is  that  believers,  who  are  baptized 
under  the  Christian  dispensation,  are  called  the  children  of 
Abraham,  who  is  the  primary  example  of  faith  to  all  be- 
lievers, though  they  be  not  circumcised.  The  seal  of  the 
covenant  authoritatively  refers  to  the  righteousness  of  faith, 
and  guarantees,  on  the  part  of  God,  the  fulfilment  of  all  his 
promises  to  the  believer.  In  the  case  of  children,  however, 
righteousness  is  without  faith,  and  consequently  the  seal  of 
baptism  in  their  case  is  the  pledge  of  faithfulness  on  the 
part  of  God,  and  of  obedience,  at  the  proper  time,  on  their 
part,  as  will  be  evident  from  a  moment's  consideration  of  the 
import  of  infant  baptism  as  a  seal.  First,  it  is  a  formal  and 
solemn  seal,  that  the  guilt  of  original  sin  is  unconditionally 


18  Watson's  Insts.,  vol.  ii.  620. 
25* 


246  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


forgiven  through  the  vicarious  death  of  Christ,  and  that  the 
infant  is  already  in  a  state  of  justification.  The  pardon  of 
the  guilt  of  original  sin,  in  the  adult,  is  never  formally  set 
forth  till  he  is  baptized ;  nor  is  the  pardon  of  actual  guilt 
in  the  adult  ever  formally  set  forth  till  he  is  baptized. 
Secondly,  as  a  consequence  of  this  unconditional  forgiveness, 
it  signifies  that  the  infant,  dying  in  infancy,  shall  be  re- 
generated by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  so  be  saved.  Thirdly, 
it  is  a  seal,  pledging  conditionally  to  the  infant,  should  he 
live,  all  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  in  time  and 
eternity.  The  conditions  of  the  covenant  of  grace  are  re- 
pentance, faith,  and  obedience,  to  be  performed  by  the  child 
should  he  ever  arrive  at  responsible  age.  Should  the  child 
arrive  at  responsible  age,  and  these  conditions  never  be  per- 
formed, then  the  covenant  from  the  first  is  a  nullity.  No 
one  will  deny,  that  he  who  is  in  a  state  of  justification  has 
a  right  to  baptism ;  and  as  every  infant  is  in  such  a  state, 
he  has  such  a  right,  just  as  the  adult  in  such  a  state  has 
such  a  right.  And  just  as  in  the  case  of  the  adult  in  a 
state  of  justification,  should  he  fail  to  fulfil  the  conditions 
of  the  covenant,  namely,  faith  and  obedience  "unto  death," 
or  during  the  period  of  probation,  the  covenant  from  the 
first  becomes  a  nullity;  so  in  the  case  of  the  child  baptized 
in  infancy,  should  he  live  and  fail  to  perform  the  conditions 
of  the  covenant,  the  covenant  to  him  from  the  first  becomes 
a  nullity.  In  the  case  of  both  infant  and  adult,  baptism,  as 
a  seal,  imposes  conditions  subsequently  to  be  performed ; 
in  both  cases,  the  covenant,  of  which  baptism  is  the  formal 
seal,  may  become  a  nullity;  and  hence  there  is  no  more 
reason  why  one  should  be  denied  baptism  than  the  other. 
In  a  word,  baptism,  as  a  seal,  in  the  case  of  infants,  signi- 
fies that,  should  they  live,  and  unto  the  end  of  life  perform 
all  the  conditions  implied,  they  shall  enjoy  all  the  blessings 
of  the  covenant  of  grace,  to  be  bestowed  at  the  proj)er  time, 


THE    SEAL,  ETC.  247 


such  as  regeneration,  sanctification,  grace  unto  all  good 
works,  deliverance  in  temptation,  comfort  in  affliction,  sup- 
port in  trial,  special  providence,  guardianship  of  angels, 
triumph  in  death,  a  glorious  resurrection,  acquittal  at  the 
judgment,  glorification  in  heaven,  and  all  the  blessings  of 
eternal  life;  and  baptism,  as  a  seal,  in  the  case  of  the  adult, 
in  the  nature  of  things,  can  signify  nothing  more  nor  less. 
Every  infant  is  born  under  obligation,  should  he  live  to  dis- 
charge all  the  conditions  of  the  covenant  of  grace ;  and  so  in 
view  of  the  prospective  performance  of  these  conditions, 
baptism  is  a  seal  by  which  he  is  recognised  as  prospectively 
entitled  to  all  the  blessings  of  the  covenant.  So  far  there- 
fore from  the  adult  having  any  right  to  deny  baptism  to 
infants,  the  adult  himself,  who  has  not  been  baptized,  is 
under  obligation  to  discharge  all  the  conditions  imposed  in 
his  own  case,  and  receive  the  formal  seal  of  baptism,  which 
was  omitted  in  his  infancy — a  neglect  which  he  is  now  bound 
to  adjust.  Such,  as  a  seal,  is  the  import  of  baptism  in  in- 
fancy. "Although  in  children  the  seal  goeth  before,  and 
righteousness  of  faith  followeth  after,  as  circumcision  in 
Isaac,  as  Augustine  showeth,  and  they  as  yet,  when  they  are 
baptized,  have  no  faith  to  make  present  use  of  the  sacrament, 
yet,  when  they  come  to  years  of  discretion,  they  are  provoked 
and  stirred  up  by  the  remembrance  of  the  seal  of  faith  given 
in  baptism,  which  was  indeed  received  but  once;  but  the 
use  and  benefit  thereof  remaineth  all  the  life  long :  so  that 
this,  notwithstanding  the  sacraments,  are  seals  of  faith, 
whether  the  seal  goeth  before  or  followeth  after."  Dr.  An- 
drew Willet,  1600.  And  he  adds:  " Although  Isaac  with 
many  others  were  first  circumcised,  and  after  justified,  yet 
this  is  perpetual;  they  were  no  more  justified  by  circum- 
cision than  Abraham,  who  was  justified  before  he  was  cir- 
cumcised, but  by  faith  only." 

(2.)  That  baptism  tuM-s  the  place  of  circumcision,  is  con- 


248  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


elusively  proved  by  the  Apostle  Paul:  "And  ye  are  com 
plete  in  him,  which  is  the  head  of  all  principality  and 
power;  in  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circum- 
cision made  without  hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the 
sins  of  the  flesh  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ;  buried  with 
him  in  baptism."**  Here  baptism  is  recognised  as  the  ini- 
tiatory rite  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  in  the  place  of 
circumcision.  The  "circumcision  of  Christ,"  in  contradis- 
tinction to  the  circumcision  of  the  old  dispensation,  must 
be  baptism,  unless  we  explain  the  phrase  as  referring  to 
Christ's  personal  circumcision,  and  then  the  meaning  of  the 
apostle  will  be,  "that  we  put  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the 
flesh,"  by  Christ's  own  personal  circumcision,  and  not  by 
his  death,  which  is  false  in  theology,  and  absurd  in  reason. 
And  lest  some  should  adopt  this  dogma,  the  apostle  adds, — 
"buried  with  him  in  baptism" — hereby  identifying  the 
"circumcision  of  Christ"  with  baptism. 

Again:  "As  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into 
Christ,  have  put  on  Christ :  and  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are 
ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise."80 
"Baptized  into  Christ" — baptized  into  the  name  of  Christ, 
means  baptized  into  the  acknowledgment  of  Christ,  a  pro- 
fession of  Christ,  into  a  right  of  participation  of  the  bless- 
ings of  Christ's  grace, — into  fellowship  with  Christ.  The 
argument  is  conclusive.  By  circumcision  the  Jews  became 
heirs  of  Abraham,  according  to  the  promise.  By  baptism, 
sacramentally,  Christians  become  the  seed  of  Abraham,  and 
heirs  according  to  the  promise.  The  blessing  is  the  same 
in  both  cases.  Again:  the  Apostle  Paul  plainly  and  ex- 
pressly declares,  that  baptism  is  substituted  in  the  place  of 
circumcision  "Beware  of  concision" — or  those  who  lay 
exorbitant  stress  on  circumcision — "  for  we  (who  are  bap- 
's Col.  ii.  10-12.  *  Gal.  iii.  27-29. 


THE    SEAL,  ETC.  249 


tized)  are  the  circumcision,  who  worship  God  in  the  Spirit." 
Phil.  iii.  2,  3.     This  is  positive,  absolute,  and  unequivocal. 

(3.)  At  Jerusalem,  when  "certain  men  from  Judea  taught 
the  G-entile  brethren,  except  ye  be  circumcised,  ye  cannot 
be  saved," 21  the  council  that  met  to  deliberate  on  this  ques- 
tion, said  nothing  about  baptism  as  a  sufficient  substitute, 
and  therefore  their  silence  is  strong  proof  that  baptism  was 
already  well  understood  as  divinely  instituted  for  such  a 
purpose.  The  believing  Jewish  zealots  at  Jerusalem,  urged 
against  the  Apostle  Paul :  "  thou  teachest  all  the  Jews  which 
are  among  the  Gentiles,  that  they  ought  not  to  circumcise 
their  children."  What  then  ?  why,  they  ought  to  baptize 
their  children. 

(4.)  The  correspondence  between  baptism  and  circumcision 
as  a  sign  and  seal. 

Firstly.  As  a  SIGN.  "Abraham  received  the  sign  of 
circumcision, — a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith  which  he 
had,  being  yet  uncircumcised."  "And  the  Lord  thy  God 
will  circumcise  thy  heart,  and  the  heart  of  thy  seed,  to  love 
the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul, 
that  thou  mayest  live."23  Here  circumcision  is  expressly 
declared  to  be  a  sign  of  that  inward  circumcision  of  the 
heart  by  which  the  soul  lives  and  enjoys  the  blessings  of 
the  covenant  of  grace.  And  so  baptism,  under  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation,  answers  the  same  purpose.  "Except  a 
man  be  born  of  water,  and  the  spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God."  Here  baptism  shadows  forth  that 
inward  spiritual  washing  which  qualifies  the  soul  for  the 
enjoyment  of  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  grace. 

Secondly.  As  a  seal.  "The  Lord  had  a  delight  in  thy 
fathers  to  love  them,  and  he  chose  their  seed  after  them, 
even  you  above  all  people;  circumcise,  therefore,  the  fore- 

2i  Acts  xv.  1-5.  22  Deut>  xxx.  6# 


250  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


skin  of  your  heart/'  ■  So  baptism,  uuder  the  Christian 
dispensation:  "As  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into 
Christ  have  put  on  Christ :"  that  is,  by  baptism  ye  have 
been  outwardly  sealed  as  Christians,  and  have  professed 
Christ.  Xow  as  this  two-fold  correspondence  between  cir- 
cumcision and  baptism  proves  that  they  are  signs  and  seals 
of  the  same  covenant  of  grace  under  the  Jewish  and  Chris- 
tian dispensations,  and  as,  on  the  abolition  of  the  Jewish 
dispensation,  baptism  was  divinely  constituted  the  sign  and 
seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace  under  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion, therefore  we  conclude  that  baptism  was  substituted  in 
the  place  of  circumcision.  In  a  word,  baptism  answers  all 
the  purposes  of  an  initiatory  ordinance,  that  circumcision 
answered  under  the  Jewish  dispensation.  Circumcision  was 
the  initiatory  sacrament  of  the  church  under  the  Abra- 
hamic  and  Mosaic  dispensations:  baptism  is  the  initiatory 
sacrament  of  the  church  under  the  Christian  dispensation. 
Circumcision  was  the  outward  sign  of  the  inward  seal,  to 
all  the  covenanted  mercies  of  the  atonement  of  Christ,  under 
the  ancient  dispensations:  baptism  is  precisely  the  same 
under  the  Christian  dispensation.  Circumcision  was  typical 
of  the  "circumcision  of  the  heart  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the 
letter :"  baptism  is  symbolical  of  the  cleansing  and  renewing 
of  the  heart  by  the  same  Spirit.  Circumcision  was  the 
badge  of  God's  people,  under  the  old  dispensations:  baptism 
is  the  same  under  the  new  dispensation.  If  then  circum- 
cision— the  initiatory  ordinance  of  the  Jewish  church,  the 
outward  seal  of  the  covenant,  the  symbol  of  spiritual  cir- 
cumcision, the  badge  of  God's  people — was  applied  to  chil- 
dren under  the  Abrahamic  and  Mosaic  dispensations,  why, 
in  the  case  of  baptism,  which  answers  all  these  ends,  and 
which  is  the  only  conceivable  substitute  for  circumcision  to 

23  Deut.  x.  15. 


THE    SEAL,  ETC.  251 


answer  these  ends,  and  which  is  the  only  proper  initiatory 
sacrament  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  restrict  its  applica- 
tion to  the  exclusion  ot  children  ? — and  that,  too,  without 
any  just  and  rational  ground  whatever?  Baptism,  under 
the  Christian  dispensation,  which  is  only  another  form  of 
the  everlasting  covenant  of  grace,  holds  the  same  place,  and 
answers  all  the  spiritual  ends  that  circumcision,  under  pre- 
vious dispensations,  held  and  accomplished.  The  fact  that 
circumcision,  under  other  dispensations,  accomplished  im- 
portant spiritual  ends,  is  positive  proof  that  it  was  the  initi- 
atory rite  of  the  great  covenant  of  grace;  and  as  baptism 
accomplishes  the  same  spiritual  ends  under  the  Christian 
dispensation,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable,  that  the  Christian 
church  is  but  the  continuation,  as  well  as  the  completion  of 
the  great  plan  of  salvation  that  had  been  in  process  of  de- 
velopment from  the  fall  of  man  till  the  death  of  Christ — 
and  this,  independently  of  all  other  considerations,  is  suffi- 
cient to  establish  the  authority  and  validity  of  infant  bap- 
tism. As  a  moral  emblem,  baptism  means  the  same  thing, 
under  the  Christian  dispensation,  that  was  included  in  cir- 
cumcision, under  the  ancient  dispensations;  and  therefore  it 
may  be  rightly  and  properly  applied  to  the  same  subjects. 
Whatever  in  whole  and  in  part,  in  a  spiritual  sense,  was 
expressed  by  circumcision,  is  expressed  by  baptism  both  in 
adult  believers  and  in  the  case  of  children.  Circumcision 
was  mainly  spiritual  in  its  design — and  yet  it  was  adminis- 
tered to  children:  so  with  baptism.  Circumcision  had 
reference  to  the  blessings  which  are  conveyed  through  the 
Messiah — and  yet  it  was  administered  to  children:  so  with 
baptism  Circumcision  was  a  seal  of  visible  membership 
in  the  church  of  God — and  yet  it  was  administered  to 
children :  so  with  baptism.  Circumcision  was  an  emblem 
of  spiritual  cleansing  and  purification — and  yet  it  was  ad- 
ministered to  children  ;  so  with  baptism.     The  unconscious- 


252  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


ness  of  children  was  not  considered  as  a  barrier  to  their  re- 
ception of  circumcision:  so  with  baptism.  Inability  to 
believe  and  discharge  the  obligations  set  forth  in  circum- 
cision did  not  disqualify  children  from  receiving  circum- 
cision :  so  with  baptism.  Indeed,  there  is  no  difference  in 
the  spiritual  meaning  of  circumcision  and  baptism.  If  there 
be  any  difference  between  them,  it  is  to  be  traced  to  the 
difference  there  is  between  the  Jewish  and  Christian  dispen- 
sations in  their  external  form.  Baptism  is  not  the  seal  of  a 
temporal  covenant,  nor  is  it  restricted  to  a  specified  time, 
nor  is  it  confined  to  one  sex:  "there  is  neither  Jew  nor 
Greek,  neither  bond  nor  free,  neither  male  nor  female,  but 
all  one  in  Christ  Jesus,"  under  the  Christian  dispensation. 

Fifthly.  The  primitive  fathers  considered  baptism  received 
in  the  place  of  circumcision.  Justin,  A. D.  140,  writes: 
"We  Gentile  Christians  also,  who  by  him  have  access  to 
God,  have  not  received  that  circumcision  which  is  according 
to  the  flesh,  but  that  circumcision  which  is  spiritual — we 
have  received  this  circumcision  in  baptism."  Again  :  "To 
us  Gentiles  baptism  is  given  instead  of  giving  us  circum- 
cision." John  Chrysostom,  Horn.  40,  in  Gen.  says,  "There 
was  pain  and  trouble  in  the  practice  of  that  Jewish  circum- 
cision; but  our  circumcision,  I  mean  the  grace  of  baptism, 
gives  cure  without  pain;  and  this  for  infants  as  well  as 
men."  Fidus,  A.  D.  250,  delayed  to  confer  baptism  on  in- 
fants till  the  eighth  day,  which  implies  that  he  regarded 
baptism  as  substituted  for  circumcision.  By  reference  to 
Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism,34  the  reader  will  find  at 
length  testimonies  to  this  effect  from  Justin,  Cyprian,  Basile, 
Ambrose,  Augustine,  Chrysostom,  and  others  which  our 
limits  forbid  us  here  to  recite. 

Mr.  Booth  states  the  only  plausible  objection  against  the 

2^  Vol  i.  chs.  6—15. 


THE    SEAL,    ETC.  253 


substitution  of  baptism  for  circumcision:  "If  baptism  suc- 
ceeded in  the  place  of  circumcision,  how  came  it  that  both 
of  them  were  in  full  force  at  the  same  time,  that  is,  from 
the  commencement  of  John's  ministry  to  the  death  of 
Christ?  For  one  thing  to  come  in  the  room  of  another, 
and  the  latter  to  hold  its  place,  is  an  odd  kind  of  succession. 
Admitting  the  succession  pretended,  how  came  it  that  Paul 
circumcised  Timothy  after  he  had  been  baptized?"  This 
objection  is  founded  upon  the  supposed  identity  of  John's, 
and  the  Christian  dispensation;  whereas  John's  dispensation 
was  introductory  and  preparatory  to  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion, and  hence,  as  John  had  no  authority  to  abolish  Jewish 
rites,  circumcision  was  practised  along  with  baptism  during 
John's  dispensation;  circumcision  could  not  be  abolished 
before  the  Jewish  dispensation  was  consummated  by  the 
death  of  Christ :  but  when  the  blood  of  the  everlasting  cove- 
nant was  shed,  circumcision  was  abolished,  and  baptism 
alone  became  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  perfected  covenant  of 
grace.  As  to  the  circumcision  of  Timothy,  it  was  merely  a 
prudential  regulation.  His  mother  was  a  Jewess,  but  his 
father  was  a  Greek — and  yet  Timothy  was  laid  under  no 
obligation  to  keep  the  Mosaic  law,  for  he  had  already  sought 
and  obtained  justification  by  faith  in  Christ.  But  when  no 
prudential  consideration  of  this  nature  rendered  circumcision 
necessary,  the  apostle  refused  to  circumcise,  as  in  the  case 
of  Titus,  who  was  a  Greek,  and  his  parents  Gentiles. M 

But  to  be  more  particular.  In  the  case  of  John's  bap- 
tism, and  that  administered  by  Christ's  disciples  before  his 
death,  both  were  preparatory  in  their  nature  and  design  to 
becoming  the  sign  and  seal  to  the  covenant  of  grace  when  it 
should  be  perfected  and  proposed  to  "all  nations"  for  ac- 
ceptance, which  did  not  take  place  till  the  "blood  of  the 

*  Gal.  ii.  3—5. 
22 


254  INFANT   BAPTISM. 

everlasting  covenant"  was  shed.  As  this  was  the  design  of 
John's  baptism,  and  as  John  was  not  invested  with  authority 
to  abolish  Jewish  rites,  or  as  the  Jewish  dispensation  was 
not  yet  consummated,  circumcision  was  yet  in  force,  and 
continued  to  be  in  force,  till  Christ  consummated  the  Jewish 
dispensation  by  his  death,  and  formally  instituted  baptism 
as  a  sufficient  sign  and  seal  of  the  Christian  dispensation. 
The  mixed  character  of  John's  dispensation,  that  is,  being 
both  Jewish  and  preparatory,  admitted  the  practice  of  both 
circumcision  and  baptism  at  the  same  time.  Baptism  was 
expressly  added  by  the  Father  under  John's  dispensation; 
circumcision  had  not  been  abolished  by  the  Saviour;  and 
therefore  the  one,  circumcision,  as  the  sign  and  seal  of  the 
Jewish  dispensation  not  yet  abolished,  and  the  other,  bap- 
tism, as  preparatory  to  the  dispensation  not  yet  introduced, 
were  properly,  and  by  divine  authority,  "both  in  full  force 
at  the  same  time."  Of  course,  when  the  Jewish  dispensa- 
tion was  consummated  by  the  death  of  Christ,  circumcision 
was  dropped  as  no  longer  appropriate  and  in  force,  and  bap- 
tism was  retained  as  the  appropriate,  standing,  and  con- 
firmatory sign  and  seal  of  the  perfected  covenant  of  grace. 
In  other  words,  John's  dispensation  being  preparatory, 
baptism  is  added  by  the  Father  as  a  significative  preparatory 
rite ;  but  the  Jewish  dispensation  not  being  yet  abolished, 
circumcision,  its  sign  and  seal,  is  still  in  force  also;  and 
both  are  administered  at  the  same  time :  but  both  the  Jew- 
ish and  John's  dispensation  being  consummated  by  the  death 
of  Christ,  circumcision  is  abolished,  and  baptism  is  retained. 
Thus,  baptism  was  not  substituted  in  the  place  of  circum- 
cision under  John's  dispensation,  when  both  were  in  force 
at  the  same  time,  but  under  the  Christian  dispensation, 
when  circumcision  was  abolished.  Besides,  John's  baptism 
was  not  Christian  baptism,  and  for  this  reason,  therefore, 
rhough   circumcision  was  practised  at  the  same  time  with 


INFANTS    OUGHT    TO    BE   BAPTIZED.  255 


•John's  baptism,  it  cannot  be  said  to  have  been  in  full  force 
at  the  same  time  with  Christian  baptism.  The  Baptists,  in 
the  objection,  fail  to  discriminate  between  John's  and  the 
Christian  dispensation,  and  so  omitting  this  important  ele- 
ment, the  Christian  dispensation,  in  the  premises,  the  con- 
clusion is  essentially  sophistical.  If  the  Baptists  indeed  could 
prove  that  circumcision  and  baptism  were  in  force  at  the  same 
time  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  even  then  it  would 
indubitably  follow  that  infants  have  a  right  to  church  mem- 
bership under  the  Christian  dispensation;  and  so  too  much 
would  be  involved  and  proved  for  the  purposes  of  the  Bap- 
tists. In  either  case,  the  Baptists  are  equally  unsuccessful : 
if  baptism  does  take  the  place  of  circumcision,  infants  have 
as  good  a  right  to  baptism  under  the  Christian  dispensation 
as  they  had  to  circumcision  under  the  Jewish ;  or  if  circum- 
cision was  still  in  force  under  the  Christian  dispensation, 
infants  had  as  good  a  right  to  it  as  they  had  under  the  Jew- 
ish: in  either  case,  nothing  is  gained  for  the  Baptists.  To 
say,  that  circumcision  was  in  force  under  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation, is  to  say,  that  infants  had  a  right  to  church  mem- 
bership under  the  Christian  dispensation;  or  to  say,  that 
baptism  was  substituted  for  circumcision  under  the  Christian 
dispensation,  is  to  say,  that  infants  had  a  right  to  church 
membership  under  the  Christian  dispensation:  so  that  no- 
thing is  gained  by  the  Baptists  by  admitting  the  force  of 
the  objection.  To  say,  that  circumcision  was  in  force  under 
the  Christian  dispensation,  is  to  admit  the  right  of  infants 
to  church  membership  under  the  Christian  dispensation :  to 
deny  that  circumcision  was  in  force  under  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation, is  to  give  up  the  objection :  in  either  case,  the 
right  of  children  to  baptism  is  established.  But  the  ob- 
jection is  urged  upon  a  specific  case:  "How  came  it  that 
Paul  circumcised  Timothy,  after  he  had  been  baptized?" 
The  explanation  is  easy.     In  the  first  place,  circumcisiou. 


256  INFANT   BAPTISM. 


was  practised  in  the  case  of  Timothy,  not  as  a  sign  and  seal 
of  the  old  dispensation,  or  as  imposing  obligation  to  observe 
the  old  Levitical  rites  in  order  to  justification,  but  as  a 
favorite  national  distinction  which  the  Jews  wished  to  ob- 
serve. The  mother  of  Timothy  was  a  Jewess ,  and  his  father 
was  a  Greek,  and  Paul  circumcised  Timothy  because  "the 
Jews  which  were  in  those  quarters"  entertained  national  preju- 
dices against  his  father,  "  for  they  knew  he  was  a  Greek." 
If  a  converted  Jew  in  the  present  day  were  disposed  to 
observe  this  rite  in  the  case  of  his  children,  as  a  national 
distinction  merely,  while  at  the  same  time  he  admitted 
baptism  as  a  sufficient  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  under 
the  Christian  dispensation,  the  observance  would  be  regarded 
as  innocent,  though  unnecessary.  Secondly,  had  Paul  sup- 
posed that  circumcision  in  the  case  of  Timothy,  or  the 
Hebrew  Christians,  was  observed  upon  any  principle  which 
affected  the  essential  doctrines  of  Christianity,  he  would 
have  firmly  and  fearlessly  opposed  it.  Thus,  when  certain 
"  false  brethren"  wished  him  to  circumcise  Titus,  who  was 
a  Gentile,  that  they  might  use  the  apostle  as  authority  in 
bringing  other  Gentile  converts  under  bondage  to  the  law 
of  Moses,  he  resolutely  refused  to  administer  the  rite,  ob- 
serving, "  to  whom  we  gave  place  by  subjection,  no  not  for 
an  hour ;  that  the  truth  of  the  gospel  might  continue  with 
you."  In  the  one  case  circumcision  was  admitted,  as  an 
infirmity  of  prejudice;  in  the  other  it  was  refused  as  involv- 
ing a  rejection  of  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith.  If  the  Baptists  could  prove  that  the  apostles 
pra3tised  circumcision  as  a  sign  and  seal  of  the  old  covenant, 
even  then  the  right  of  infants  to  church  membership  under 
the  Christian  dispensation  would  follow,  and  so  nothing 
would  be  gained  by  the  argument.  But  Paul  positively 
declares  that  circumcision,  practised  as  a  seal  of  the  old 
covenant,  involves  a  total  denial  of  Christ,  and  the  new 


INFANTS    OUGHT    TO    BE    BAPTIZED.  257 


covenant ;  he  also  uniformly  affirms  that  circumcision  passed 
away  with  the  old  dispensation  of  which  it  was  the  seal : 
hence  he  could  not  have  administered  the  rite  in  the  case  of 
Timothy,  nor  admitted  it  in  the  case  of  the  Hebrew  Chris- 
tians, as  a  sign  and  seal  of  the  new  covenant  under  the 
Christian  dispensation.     Our  fourth  proposition  follows : 

4.  Hence,  infants  ought  to  be  baptized. 

First.  The  church  was  not  organized  in  the  days  of  Christ, 
but  under  the  old  dispensation.  The  constitution  under 
which  any  society  or  association  is  organized,  determines  who 
shall  be  members  of  it.  The  original  constitution  of  the 
church  recognised  infants  as  members  of  it ;  and  hence,  as 
the  church  remains  the  same  in  all  ages,  infants  to  the  end 
of  time  are  to  be  formally  recognised  as  a  portion  of  its 
members.  It  was  not  a  neiv  church  into  which  Gentile  be- 
lievers entered  upon  the  opening  of  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion, but  the  old  church,  in  which  children  had  always  been 
recognised  as  members,  and  which,  at  the  time  of  the  enter- 
ing of  the  Gentiles,  still  received  children.  Had  the  church 
been  organized  in  the  days  of  Christ,  and  infants  been 
omitted,  then  it  might  be  conceded  that  they  are  not  entitled 
to  church  membership :  but  as  the  constitution  under  which 
the  church  was  organized  has  not  been  altered  in  this  re- 
spect, infants,  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  are  entitled 
to  church  membership,  and  hence  should  be  baptized. 

Secondly.  Circumcision  bore  the  same  relation  to  the  cove- 
nant of  salvation,  under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  that  bap- 
tism does  to  the  same  covenant,  under  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation. By  circumcision  under  the  Jewish  dispensation, 
children  received  the  outward  sign  of  the  covenant,  and 
were  received  into  the  Jewish  church ;  so  by  baptism  under 
the  Christian  dispensation,  they  receive  the  outward  sign  of 
the  same  covenant,  and  are  received  into  the  Christian 
church.     If  children,  at  one  time,  though  under  a  different 

22* 


258  INFANT   BAPTISM. 


dispensation,  have  a  right  to  the  spiritual  blessings  of  the 
covenant,  they  have  at  all  times,  and  under  all  dispensa- 
tions, the  same  right.  Circumcision  did  not  belong  to  the 
ceremonial  law,  but  to  the  covenant;  hence  the  abrogation 
of  the  Mosaic  or  ceremonial  law,  and  the  abolition  of  circum- 
cision, cannot  disannul  the  original  covenant,  and  hence  do 
not  invalidate  the  rights  of  infants  to  the  blessings  of  the 
covenant.  "The  law  cannot  disannul  the  covenant,"  nor 
set  aside- the  "promises."26  And  as  circumcision  belonged, 
not  to  the  ceremonial  law,  but  to  the  covenant  under  the 
law,  as  baptism  belongs  to  the  same  covenant  under  the 
gospel,  both  circumcision  and  baptism  being  initiating  sacra- 
ments of  the  covenant,  though  under  different  dispensations ; 
it  follows  that  the  meaning  and  application  of  baptism  are 
the  same  under  the  gospel  as  were  contained  in  circumcision 
under  the  law — and  hence  infants  cannot  justly  be  excluded 
from  baptism.  The  covenant  has  undergone  no  change  by 
express  precept,  which  formerly  recognised  the  rights  of 
infants  to  church  membership  j  the  moral  character  of  the 
infant  is  the  same  since  the  fall  of  man ;  the  organization 
of  the  church  has  not  been  subjected  to  any  modification 
with  respect  to  infants  since  its  origin  in  the  time  of  Abra- 
ham ;  and  consequently  infants  are  entitled  to  the  formal 
recognitiou  of  the  whole  scope  of  their  rights  under  the 
gospel. 

Thirdly.  Baptism  is  substituted  in  the  place  of  circum- 
cision. This  has  been  proved.  But  children,  under  the 
Jewish  dispensation,  were  circumcised.  Therefore,  children 
under  the  Christian  dispensation,  should  be  baptized. 

We  now  conclude  the  argument  of  this  chapter.     The 

CHURCH  IN  ALL  AGES,  IS  UNDER  THE  SAME  COVENANT  OP 
GRACE,  THOUGH   IT    MAY  BE    UNDER  DIFFERENT  DISPENSA- 

26  Gal.  iii.  17-21. 


THE    NEW   TESTAMENT,  ETC.  259 


tions.  Hence,  the  seal  of  every  dispensation  is  a 
seal  of  the  general  covenant  of  grace.  there- 
fore, baptism,  the  seal  of  the  covenant  under  the 
Christian  dispensation,  is  substituted  for  circum- 
cision, THE  SEAL  OF  THE  COVENANT  UNDER  THE  JEWISH 
DISPENSATION.  HENCE,  INFANTS  OUGHT  TO  BE  BAPTIZED, 
AS  INFANTS  ARE  EMBRACED  IN  THE  GENERAL  COVENANT, 
AND  WERE  SEALED  BY  CIRCUMCISION,  AS  THE  HEIRS  OF 
SALVATION,  UNDER  THE  AbRAHAMIC  AND  MOSAIC  DIS- 
PENSATIONS. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT    IN    HARMONY  WITH   THE  DOCTRINE 
OF   INFANT   BAPTISM. 

The  New  Testament  abounds  with  scriptures  which  can- 
not be  satisfactorily  and  fully  explained  but  in  harmony  with 
the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism. 

1.  I  invite  the  reader's  attention  to  the  general  com- 
mission of  Christ  to  his  apostles:  "Go  ye  therefore  and 
teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them,"  &C.1  How  may  we  sup- 
pose the  apostles,  who  were  Jews,  understood  this  ?  How 
may  we  suppose  all  the  Jews  understood  this  ?  How  would 
missionaries,  sent  out  from  any  of  the  psedobaptist  denomina- 
tions, understand  it  ?  Why,  that  they  were  authorized  to 
include  children,  according  to  the  usages,  manners,  and  laics 
to  which  they  had  been  accustomed.  And  how  would  Bap- 
tist missionaries  understand  it?  Why,  that  children  ought 
to  be  excepted  ?  Now  from  every  sound  view  of  the  usages, 
manners,  and  laws  of  the  Jews,  the  conclusion  is  irresisti- 

!  Matt,  xxviii.  19. 


260  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


ble,  that  the  apostles,  commissioned  by  Christ  to  "  baptize 
all  nations/'  understood  that  children  were  embraced  in  the 
scope  of  their  commission,  as  we  shall  now  see.  For  many 
centuries  before  this  commission  was  given,  it  had  been  the 
custom  of  the  Jews  to  baptize  all  their  proselytes  from  other 
nations,  both  parents  and  children.2  "  It  is  evident  that  the 
custom  of  the  Jews  before  our  Saviour's  time  (and,  as  they 
themselves  affirm,  from  the  beginning  of  their  law)  was  to 
baptize  as  well  as  to  circumcise  any  proselyte  that  came  over 
to  them  from  the  nations.  This  does  fully  appear  both 
from  the  books  of  the  Jews  themselves,  and  also  of  others 
that  understood  the  Jewish  customs  and  have  written  of 
them."  In  the  words  of  3Iaimonides,  the  great  interpreter 
of  Jewish  law  :  "By  these  three  things  did  Israel  enter  into 
covenant,  by  circumcision,  and  baptism,  and  sacrifice.  Cir- 
cumcision was  in  Egypt,  as  it  is  written,  No  uncircumcised 
person  shall  eat  thereof,  &c.  Baptism  was  in  the  wilderness 
just  before  the  giving  of  the  law :  as  it  is  written,  Sanctify 
them  to-day  and  to-morrow,  and  let  them  icash  their  clothes, 
i.  e.  their  whole  bodies.  And  sacrifice  :  as  it  is  said,  And 
he  sent  young  men  of  the  children  of  Israel,  which  offered 
burnt-offerings,"  &c.3 

Talmud,  Tract,  Repud.  "Israel  does  not  enter  into  cove- 
nant but  by  these  three  things,  by  circumcision,  baptism, 
and  peace-offering ;  and  the  proselytes  in  like  manner."  3 

And  again,  Ad  Tit.  Cherithoth,  cap.  2.  "  As  you  are,  so 
shall  the  stranger  be.  As  you  are,  that  is,  as  was  done  to 
your  fathers.  And  what  was  done  to  them  ?  Your  fathers 
did  not  enter  into  covenant  but  by  circumcision,  and  bap- 
tism, and  sprinkling  of  blood.  So  neither  do  proselytes 
enter  into  covenant  but  by  circumcision,  baptism,  and  sprin- 
kling of  blood."3 

2  Lightfoot  and  Wootten. 

a  Wall's  Hist.  Inf.  Bap.  vol.  i.  11,  12,  13. 


THE    GREAT    COMMISSION.  261 


Rabbi  Solomon  in  loco.  "Our  rabbies  teach  that  our 
fathers  entered  into  covenant  by  circumcision,  and  baptism, 
and  sprinkling  of  blood/' 4 

"And  Mr.  Selden,  De  Synedr.  lib.  i.  cap.  3,  observes 
that  that  saying  of  St.  Paul,  1  Cor.  x.  1,  2,  "All  our 
fathers  were  baptized  unto  Moses,  in  the  cloud,  and  in 
the  sea,"  would  have  been  difficult  for  those  to  whom  St. 
Paul  wrote  to  make  any  sense  of,  had  it  not  been  a  thing 
well  known  at  the  time  when  the  apostle  wrote,  that  the 
Jews  looked  upon  themselves  as  having  entered  into  cove- 
nant by  baptism ;  and  that  St.  Paul  spoke  as  alluding  to 
that.     And  Dr.  Hammond  concludes  the  same."  4 

Maimonides  observes:  "And  so  in  all  ages,  when  an 
ethnic  is  willing  to  enter  into  covenant,  and  gather  himself 
under  the  wings  of  the  majesty  of  God,  and  take  upon  him 
the  yoke  of  the  law;  he  must  be  circumcised  and  baptized, 
and  bring  a  sacrifice.  As  it  is  written,  As  you  are,  so  shall 
the  stranger  be.  How  are  you  ?  By  circumcision,  bap- 
tism, and  bringing  of  a  sacrifice.  So  likewise  the  stranger 
through  all  generations;  by  circumcision,  and  baptism,  and 
bringing  a  sacrifice." 

"  Besides,  the  infant  children  of  proselytes,  at  the  father's 
desire,  were  circumcised,  and  baptized,  and  admitted  as 
proselytes.  The  child's  inability  to  declare  or  promise  for 
himself  was  not  regarded  as  a  bar  against  his  reception  into 
covenant;  but  the  desire  of  the  father  to  dedicate  him  to  the 
true  God,  was  considered  available,  and  sufficient  to  justify 
his  admission."  5 

It  was  a  custom  of  the  Jews  to  baptize  any  child  they 
found  exposed  in  "the  fields,  woods,  or  highways  by  the 
heathen." 

Maimonides,  Halach  Abidim,  c.  8.      "An  Israelite  that 

4  Wall's  Hist.  Inf.  Bap.  vol.  i.  11,  12,  13.  5  Ibid,  vol.  i.  14. 


262  INFANT   BAPTISM. 


takes  a  child,  or  finds  a  heathen  infant,  and  baptizes  him  for 
a  proselyte  :  behold  he  is  a  proselyte." 

Hierosol.  Javamoth,  fol.  8.  4.  " Behold,  one  finds  an 
infant  cast  out,  and  baptizes  him  in  the  name  of  a  servant. 
But  if  he  baptize  him  in  the  name  of  a  freeman ;  do  thou 
also  circumcise  him  in  the  name  of  a  freeman."  8 

Dr.  Lightfoot  observes :  "  The  baptizing  of  infants  was  a 
thing  as  well  known  in  the  church  of  the  Jews,  as  ever  it 
has  been  in  the  Christian  church."  And  Selden  and 
Wotton  both  testify,  "  that  children,  however  young,  were 
made  proselytes." 

The  rabbies  unanimously  assert,  that  proselyte  baptism 
had  been  the  practice  according  to  their  law,  from  the  time 
of  Moses  down  to  their  own  age. 

The  Jews  expressed  no  surprise  at  the  doctrine  of  baptism 
preached  by  John,  as  if  it  were  a  novelty,  but  they  were 
surprised  that  he  should  baptize,  as  he  did  not  acknowledge 
himself  to  be  the  Christ,  nor  Elias,  nor  that  Prophet  who 
should  come.  The  Jews  expected  that  they  would  baptize 
on  their  arrival.  "  Why  baptizest  thou,  if  thou  be  none  of 
these?"  And  if  John  did  not  baptize  children,  the  Jews 
might  have  inquired  also,  and  probably  would  have  done  so. 
by  what  authority  do  you  make  this  important  and  extra- 
ordinary innovation  upon  our  laws  and  usages  ?  Ainsworth, 
having  shown  at  large  the  prevalence  of  the  custom  of  prose- 
lyte baptism,  adds  at  the  conclusion,  "Hereupon  baptism 
was  nothing  strange  to  the  Jews  when  John  the  Baptist 
began  his  ministry.  They  made  question  of  his  person  that 
did  it,  but  not  of  the  thing  itself."  Thus,  it  is  easy  to  see, 
that  the  comprehensive  commission  of  Christ,  "  Go,  and  teach 
all  nations,  and  baptize  them,"  &c,  plainly  implied  that  the 
apostles,  who  were  Jews,  understood  that  they  were  not  to 

6  Wall's  Inf.  Bap.  vol.  i.  20. 


THE    GREAT    COMMISSION.  26o 


depart  from  the  old  law  and  usage  of  the  Jewish  church  on 
the  subject  of  baptism.  As  the  ancient  custom  of  baptizing 
infants  had  "undergone  no  change  by  explicit  enactment,  and 
no  particular  exception  respecting  it  was  made  in  the  great 
commission  of  Christ  to  his  apostles,  it  is  clear,  that  when 
they  came  to  the  cases  of  infants,  at  any  time,  in  their  ad- 
ministration of  baptism,  they  felt  it  their  duty  to  baptize 
them  also.  Christ  made  no  alteration  in  this  matter  in  the 
church  in  which  he  and  his  apostles  lived,  and  consequently 
none  can  now  be  made  without  some  well  attested  authority 
from  heaven. 

Suppose  the  word  circumcise  had  been  adopted  by  Christ 
instead  of  baptize,  in  the  great  commission,  no  doubt  could 
have  existed  respecting  the  scope  of  the  commission  to  the 
apostles :  and  infants,  without  any  specification  being  made, 
would  have  been  regarded  as  proper  subjects  of  circumcision, 
according  to  the  unrepealed  laws  and  usages  of  the  Jewish 
church.  In  like  manner,  according  to  the  unrepealed  usages 
of  the  Jewish  church,  the  apostles  must  have  felt  bound  to 
recognise  infants  as  proper  subjects  of  baptism.  Had  the 
word  circumcise  been  adopted  instead  of  baptize,  the  apostles 
could  not  have  considered  children  excluded — unless  excep- 
tion had  been  explicitly  made.  Consequently,  the  adoption 
of  a  rite,  baptism,  to  which  they  had  been  always  accus- 
tomed, and  which  they  knew  had  been  long  and  universally 
administered  to  proselytes,  did  not  involve  in  their  minds 
any  exception  of  children.  They  were  commanded  now  to 
"proselyte" — txa^zeuw,  matheteuo — all  nations.  "They 
knew  what  initiatory  ceremonies  were  performed  in  the  case 
of  proselytes,  namely,  circumcision,  baptism,  and  sacri- 
fice. But  Jesus  had  abolished  the  old  Jewish  dispensation, 
and  consequently  its  initiatory  rite  with  it.  He  had  also 
offered  up  himself  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin  once  for  all,  and 
thus  the  "sacrifice"  required  was  also  set  aside.     But  BAP- 


264  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


TISM  was  retained,  and  was  positively  instituted  by  Christ 
as  the  sole  initiatory  rite  of  the  Christian  church.  In  the 
first  council  of  the  Christian  church,  in  the  year  49,  when 
the  question  of  circumcision  was  discussed,  the  decision  of 
these  very  apostles  was,  that  circumcision  should  be  dis- 
pensed with  under  the  Christian  dispensation.  Baptism 
remaining,  and  being  enjoined  by  our  Saviour  as  the  initia- 
tory sacrament  of  the  Christian  church,  the  apostles  were 
bound,  under  the  most  solemn  responsibilities,  to  administer 
it  in  the  case  of  children,  in  accordance  with  the  earliest 
institution  of  their  laws,  usages,  and  customs,  especially 
when  they  knew  that  their  commission  enlarged,  instead  of 
diminished,  the  blessings  and  privileges  of  the  everlasting 
covenant.  As  Gentiles,  under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  were 
received  into  the  church  by  circumcision,  sacrifice,  and 
baptism,  and  as  children  were  so  received  with  their  parents, 
so  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  as  Christ  has  abolished 
circumcision  and  sacrifice,  and  retained  baptism,  the  chil- 
dren of  Gentile  parents  ought  to  be  received  into  the  Chris- 
tian church  by  baptism  alone — and  so  the  apostles  must 
have  understood  it.  Now,  Christ  might  just  as  well  have 
retained  circumcision,  and  dropped  baptism,  had  he  seen 
proper  to  do  so,  and  then  none  of  the  present  day,  or  of  any 
other  age,  without  express  prohibition,  would  have  denied 
children  the  right  to  circumcision.  But  as  Christ  has  re- 
tained baptism  as  sufficient  without  circumcision,  certainly 
children  are  as  much  entitled  to  baptism  now,  without  ex- 
press prohibition,  as  they  were  to  circumcision  before  cir- 
cumcision was  dropped  or  abolished  by  Christ.  In  a  word, 
before  the  coming  of  Christ,  Gentile  children  were  entitled 
to  the  whole  of  the  initiatory  rite  above;  surely,  then,  after 
the  coming  of  Christ,  they  are  entitled  to  that  part  which  is 
retained  and  enjoined,  to  answer  the  end  of  the  whole  of 
the  original,  complex,  and  burdensome  rite.     Christ  "took/' 


THE    GREAT    COMMISSION.  265 


gays  Dr.  Lightfoot,  "into  his  hands  baptism  such  as  he 
found  it;  adding  only  this,  that  he  exalted  it  to  a  nobler 
purpose  and  a  larger  sense."  And  he  observes,  "The 
whole  nation  knew  well  enough  that  infants  used  to  be  bap- 
tized. There  was  no  need  of  a  precept  for  that  which  had 
ever  by  common  use  prevailed.  It  was  therefore  necessary, 
on  the  other  side,  that  there  should  have  been  an  express 
and  plain  order  that  infants  and  little  children  should  not 
be  baptized,  if  our  Saviour  had  meant  that  they  should  not. 
For  since  it  was  ordinary,  in  all  ages  preceding,  to  have  in- 
fants baptized,  if  Christ  would  have  had  that  usage  to  be 
abolished,  he  would  have  expressly  forbidden  it.  So  that 
his  and  the  Scriptures'  silence  in  this  matter  does  confirm 
and  establish  infant  baptism  for  ever." 

The  reason  of  things  is  obvious.  In  the  original  consti- 
tution of  the  plan  of  redemption,  God  designed  that  baptism 
should  finally  become  the  initiatory  rite  of  that  dispensation 
which  should  embrace  "all  nations."  Before,  however,  this 
dispensation  could  be  properly  introduced,  it  was  necessary 
that  the  Jewish  dispensation  should  be  instituted  as  pre- 
liminary. From  the  peculiarity  of  the  Jewish  dispensation, 
its  initiatory  rite  embraced  circumcision  and  sacrifice;  and 
in  case  of  proselytes  from  Gentile  nations,  baptism  was 
added.  And  why  added  in  the  case  of  Gentiles  ?  Because, 
among  other  reasons,  but  principally  this,  when  the  Jewish 
dispensation  should  be  set  aside,  or  merged  in  the  Christian 
dispensation,  and  that  part  of  the  initiatory  rite  which  re- 
ferred especially  to  the  Jews  should  be  set  aside  also,  the 
remaining  part,  which  referred  especially  to  the  Gentiles, 
should  still  be  retained.  And  so  it  was  customary  among 
the  Jews  to  use  bread  and  wine  at  the  conclusion  of  the 
celebration  of  the  Passover,  which  custom  Jesus  sanctioned 
and  perpetuated  at   the  last  passover. 7     Thus  the  blessed 

7  Luke  xxii.  19-20. 
23 


266  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


Jesus  sanctioned  proselyte  baptism,  and  solemnly  appointed 
it  as  a  standing  sacrament  till  the  consummation  of  the 
Christian  dispensation — and  the  apostles  must  hare  under- 
stood it  as  still  embracing  children.  It  may  be  added,  that 
this  modification  of  the  ancient  initiatory  rite  of  proselytes, 
is  the  more  proper  and  wise,  because  it  is  less  burdensome — 
universal  in  its  application — and  more  expressive  of  the 
dispensation  to  which  it  is  attached.  This  view  is  forcibly 
sustained  by  a  reference  to  other  parts  of  the  great  com- 
mission. "  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach" — the  word  rendered 
teach  is  not  bioda/.u),  didasko,  but  [Aaftrt7£V(jjy  rnatheteuo — 
"disciple,  proselyte8  all  nations" — the  very  work  of  the 
Jewish  dispensation,  and  that  ichich  was  designed  to  succeed 
the  Jewish  dispensation.  u  Teaching  them  to  observe" — 
diddezat — didaslcOj  is  the  word  now  employed.  It  would  be 
palpable  tautology  to  say,  "  Go  teach  all  nations — teaching 
them,"  ka;  but  when  the  phraseology  is  changed,  "Go, 
disciple,  proselyte  all  nations — teaching  them,  imparting 
instruction  to  them,  training  them  up  in  all  the  precepts 
and  doctrines  which  I  have  commanded  you,"  all  is  con- 
sistent, plain,  and  impressive.  The  full  and  satisfactory 
explanation  of  the  great  commission  then  will  run  as  follows  : 
Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  proselyte  all  nations,  initiating 
them  by  baptism  into  the  Christian  church,  and  teaching 
them,  training  them  up  in  all  the  doctrines  and  precepts  of 
the  Christian  dispensation.  Retain  and  perpetuate  unto  the 
Gentiles  that  part  of  the  original  rite  of  initiation  that  espe- 
cially referred  to  them,  and  with  which  they  are  already 
familiar;  and  as  children  can  be  trained  for  the  kingdom  of 
God,  embrace  them  in  your  commission  as  proper  subjects 
of  baptism,  according  to  the  ancient  laws  and  usages  of  the 


'  The  highest  authority,  classical  and  hiblical,  give  fiaSrjrrikd  this  com- 
prehensive signification. 


Tilt:    GREAT    COMMISSION.  267 


Jewish  dispensation.  Now  when  in  addition  to  the  know 
ledge  the  apostles  had  of  the  ancient  laws  and  usages  of  the 
Jewish  church  in  the  case  of  proselytes,  it  is  considered 
that  the  apostles  knew  and  taught  that  circumcision  was 
superseded  by  baptism  as  an  initiating  ordinance,  no  rational 
doubt  can  remain  respecting  the  comprehensiveness  of  the 
evangelical  commission.  Granting  that  the  apostles  paid 
no  regard  to  ancient  laws  and  usages,  even  then,  upon  the 
ground  of  the  suhstitutory  character  of  baptism,  they  must 
have  considered  themselves  as  laid  under  obligation,  and 
invested  with  authority,  to  administer  baptism  to  infants 
under  the  gospel  commission.  But  when  the  force  of  habit, 
that  is,  the  force  of  long  established  laws  and  usages,  is 
superadded  to  this  consideration,  it  is  morally  certain  that 
our  conclusion  respecting  the  scope  of  the  apostles'  views  of 
the  great  commission  is  correct. 

The  fact  that  the  believing  Jews  regarded  their  children 
as  proper  subjects  of  circumcision  only,  and  not  of  baptism, 
on  the  expression  of  faith  by  any  Jewish  parents,  does  not 
affect  the  question  at  all — tliis  was  the  error  of  their  own; 
for  the  gospel  concluded  all  under  sin,  recognising  neither 
Jew  nor  Greek  as  entitled  to  special  privileges,  and  hence 
embraces  "  all  the  world"  in  the  range  of  its  influence,  and 
comprehends  "  every  creature"  in  the  number  of  its  objects. 
But  "little  children,"  it  is  objected,  "are  incapable  of  in- 
struction, and  therefore  they  are  not  included  in  the  terms 
of  the  great  commission."  What,  are  they  not  to  be  taught 
the  doctrines  of  the  gospel  ?  Are  they  not  to  hear  of  salva- 
tion by  Jesus  Christ?  "Was  not  Timothy  taught  in  the 
Scriptures  from  a  child  ?  "Was  not  the  Jewish  child,  at  the 
earliest  age  possible,  taught  the  very  first  part  of  the  ten 
commandments:  "Honor  thy  father?"  Did  not  the  ad- 
monition of  Solomon  fall  upon  the  ear  of  the  child  as  soon 


2G8  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


as  instruction  could  be  communicated :  "  Remember  now  thy 
Creator  ?» 

Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  exhorted  the  "  chil- 
dren to  obey  their  parents/ '  and  the  fathers  that  they  should 
"  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord." 

It  is  further  objected,  "that  the  Jews  were  not  accustomed 
to  receive  proselytes  till  the  destruction  of  the  second  temple, 
a.d.  70."  Upon  unquestionable  testimony,  which  we  have 
adduced,  proselytes  were  received  into  the  Jewish  church  long 
before  the  coming  of  Christ.  But  granting  that  proselytes 
were  not  received  by  baptism  till  A.  D.  70,  then  we  have  it 
admitted  by  the  Baptists,  that  children  were  baptized  seventy 
years  after  the  coming  of  Christ.  This  was  in  the  very 
midst  of  the  apostles'  days!  And  therefore  it  was  by 
apostolic  authority  that  the  Jews  baptized  the  children  of 
proselytes  ?  And  it  is  unaccountable  why  the  Jews  should, 
and  the  Christians  should  not,  baptize  children.  Epictetus, 
a  heathen  writer,  who  lived,  according  to  Dr.  Lardner,  A.  D. 
109,  and  according  to  Le  Clerc,  104,  and  who  was  about 
sixty  years  old  when  he  wrote  the  following  quotation,  and 
obtained  his  information  about  thirty  years  earlier,  which 
brings  him  up  to  the  apostolic  age,  says,  "  When  we  see  any 
one  wavering,  we  are  wont  to  say,  This  is  not  a  Jew,  but  acts 
one.  But  when  he  assumes  the  sentiments  of  one  who  hath 
been  baptized  and  circumcised,  then  he  both  really  is,  and 
is  called  a  Jew."  Mr.  Booth,  a  distinguished  Baptist,  ad- 
mits that  "the  children  of  proselytes  were  baptized  along 
with  their  parents." 

Again,  it  is  objected:  "It  is  not  commanded  in  the  great 
commission  to  baptize  infants,  therefore  they  are  not  to  be 
baptized."  To  which  I  briefly  answer  :  it  is  not  forbidden 
to  baptize  infants,  therefore  they  are  to  be  baptized,  because 
the  original  law  in  their  case  is  unrepealed. 

Secondly.  Peter's  first  sermon.     "Then  Peter  said  unto 


THE    GREAT    COMMISSION.  269 


them,  Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  re 
ceive  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  the  promise  is  to  you  and  to 
your  children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as 
the  Lord  our  God  shall  call."  9  This,  we  say,  is  a  positive 
declaration  and  recognition  of  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism 
under  the  Christian  dispensation.  "The  promise" — what 
promise  ?  The  promise  of  redemption  by  Jesus  Christ,  a 
promise  that  runs  through  the  Bible — made  to  Adani— "the 
seed  of  the  woman  shall  bruise  the  serpent's  head;"  repeated 
to  Abraham — "in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth 
be  blessed;"  affirmed  by  Christ — "I  am  of  the  seed  of 
Abraham;"  fulfilled  by  Christ — "it  is  finished;"  proclaimed 
by  Christ — "  go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations  baptizing 
them  in  the  name,  &c. — beginning  at  Jerusalem;"  and 
preached  by  Peter  on  this  occasion  at  Jerusalem — "  for  the 
promise  is  unto  you,  and  to  your  children."  Children  then 
are  here  specifically  included  in  the  promise,  and  hence  they 
can  be  no  more  denied  baptism,  than  they  can  be  excluded 
from  the  promise — can  no  more  be  denied  baptism,  than  the 
converted  Jews  who  embraced  the  promise  could  be  denied 
baptism — are  just  as  clearly  recognised  as  entitled  to  bap- 
tism, because  embraced  in  the  promise,  as  the  converted 
Jews  were  who  embraced  the  promise  and  were  baptized. 
To  be  embraced  in  the  promise,  is  to  be  entitled  to  the  seal 
of  the  promise,  which  is  baptism:  "children"  are  embraced 
in  the  promise,  and  therefore  are  entitled  to  baptism  :  "chil- 
dren" are  specifically  embraced  in  the  promise — "  children," 
therefore,  are  specifically  entitled  to  baptism.  This  then  is 
a  positive,  specific,  scriptural  recognition  and  declaration  of 
the  right  of  children  to  baptism.  "  The  promise" — the 
everlasting    covenant   of  salvation — of  which    circumcision 

9  Acte  ii.  38,  39. 
23* 


270  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


^as  the  seal  under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  and  infants 
received  this  seal  under  the  Jewish  dispensation.  "  The 
promise" — the  everlasting  covenant  of  salvation — but  bap- 
tism is  the  seal  of  this  covenant  under  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation, and  therefore  both  parents  and  children  should 
be  baptized,  for  Peter  declares  that  both  parents  and  "  chil- 
dren" are  included  in  "the  promise."  The  argument  of  the 
Baptists  runs  thus :  "  The  promise  is  unto  you,  and  there- 
fore you  are  to  be  baptized :  the  promise  is  also  unto  your 
children,  but  they  are  not  to  be  baptized."  This  makes 
Peter  contradict  himself,  annulling  the  very  reason  for  the 
baptism  of  the  children,  which  he  had  made  the  ground  of 
the  baptism  of  the  parents.  Indeed,  the  Baptists  have  in- 
verted the  order  of  things,  and  in  doing  so,  have  excluded 
one  party  altogether  from  baptism.  Antecedent  to  repentance 
and  faith  children  have  a  right  to  baptism ;  and  subsequent 
to  repentance  and  faith  the  adult  has  a  right  to  baptism ; 
and  because  the  adult  repents  and  believes  he  has  a  right  to 
the  very  privilege  which  the  child  had  antecedently.  So 
far  therefore  from  excluding  children  from  baptism,  adults 
themselves  have  not  a  right  to  baptism  till  they  repent  and 
believe.  And  hence  Peter  says,  "Repent,  and  be  baptized, 
every  one  of  you,"  &c.  That  is,  repentance  in  adults 
exalts  them  to  equal  privileges  with  children;  in  other 
words,  invests  adults  with  a  right  to  the  privileges  which 
the  children  already  possess.  u  For  the  promise  is  unto 
you,  and  to  your  children."  That  is,  "your  children"  are 
already  included  in  "  the  promise,"  and  therefore  are  now 
entitled  to  baptism,  the  seal  of  the  promise;  but  you,  having 
forfeited  all  right  by  transgression  to  the  blessings  of  "  the 
promise,"  can  recover  right  to  those  blessings  only  by  re- 
pentance. The  reason  why  baptism  is  connected  with  re- 
mce  in  the  case  of  the  adults  is,  because  they  had 
forfeited   all   right   to  baptism  by  tran.-gres-ien.     More   is 


THE    GHEAT    COMMISSION.  271 


included  in  the  scope  of  "baptism  than  in  that  of  repentance, 
repentance  being  limited  to  adults,  and  baptism  being  ex- 
tended to  both  children,  and  to  adults  that  repent.  As 
repentance  cannot  be  applied  to,  or  required  of  infants,  it 
cannot  be  made  a  prerequisite  in  their  case  to  baptism,  and 
on  this  account  solely  they  cannot  be  justly  excluded  from 
baptism.  And  we  conclude,  that  Peter,  so  far  from  repeal- 
ing the  old  divine  statute  that  included  infants  in  the  cove- 
nant of  grace,  positively  reaffirms  their  interest  in  the  cove- 
nant, and  so  confirms  their  unconditional  right  to  baptism, 
its  seal  under  the  Christian  dispensation — a  right  which 
cannot  be  denied  them  without  violating  a  fundamental  prin- 
ciple of  the  plan  of  salvation. 

It  may  be  added,  Peter  and  the  rest  of  the  apostles  were 
well  acquainted  with  four  things  at  this  time,  first,  that  "  the 
promise"  of  the  "  everlasting  covenant,"  made  with  Abra- 
ham, embraced  "children,"  "little  ones;"  secondly,  that 
the  children  of  proselytes,  from  the  first,  had  been  baptized 
with  their  parents;  thirdly,  that  they  addressed  Jews  on 
this  occasion,  who  understood  the  scope  of  "  the  promise," 
and  who  had  always  been  accustomed  to  bring  their  children 
under  the  same  covenant  with  themselves;  and  fourthly, 
that  baptism  was  substituted  in  the  place  of  circumcision. 
That,  Peter,  therefore,  included  the  young  children  at  this 
time,  cannot  be  rationally  questioned  without  setting  aside 
these  considerations.  Indeed,  Peter  explicitly  mentions 
CHILDREN  as  embraced  in  the  covenant  still  in  force,  and  in 
his  commission  received  from  Christ;  and  if  there  were  no 
other  passage  in  the  New  Testament  that  refers  to  them 
directly  or  indirectly,  by  name  or  by  implication,  this 
single  positive  specification  of  children  were  sufficient  to 
establish  the  divine  and  apostolic  authority  of  infant  baptism. 
Specifications  of  exceptions  would  have  been  required  for 
departure  from  the  old  Paws  and  usages  familiar  to  the  Jews; 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


but  so  far  from  this,  in  accordance  with  the  established  prin- 
ciples and  known  feelings  of  the  Jewish  nation,  Peter  ex- 
pressly includes  children,  as  entitled  to  the  religious  privileges 
of  the  new  dispensation,  in  common  with  their  parents :  "for 
the  promise  is  unto  you  and  to  YOUR  children. "  Peter 
himself,  as  a  Jew,  could  not  except  them — or  if  he  did,  he 
must  have  satisfactorily  vindicated  his  conduct  before  the 
scrupulous  Jews.  The  parents  were  baptized  because  the 
promise  of  salvation  was  unto  them  :  but  it  certainly  will 
be  admitted  on  all  hands,  that  the  promise  of  salvation  in- 
cludes little  children  j  and  as  the  greater  blessing  involves 
the  less,  all  who  are  entitled  to  salvation  have  as  just  and 
valid  a  title  to  baptism ;  and  hence,  children  have  as  good 
and  valid  a  title  to  baptism  as  their  parents — and  so  Peter 
included  the  children.  That  is,  the  promise  of  salvation  by 
Jesus  Christ,  the  seed  of  Abraham,  is  unto  you  and  your 
children,  and  therefore  you  and  your  children  are  equally 
entitled  to  baptism,  the  initiatory  rite  of  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation. How  would  you  justify  the  declaration  of  Peter 
except  on  the  ground  that  children  were  still  embraced  in 
the  original  covenant,  and  therefore  were  entitled  to  the 
same  initiatory  seal  with  their  parents  ?  Nothing  else  could 
have  justified  or  explained  Peter's  reference  to  children  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost;  for  certainly  the  children  could  not 
"repent"  nor  believe;  and  but  with  reference  to  baptism, 
their  name  might  have  been  omitted  altogether.  Peter  well 
knew,  however,  that  reference  to  children  was  necessary  in 
order  to  remind  them  of  the  continuation  of  their  title  to  the 
outward  seal  of  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  and  to 
express  the  ample  range  of  the  Christian  dispensation  in  all 
ages  of  time.  Had  he  omitted  the  children,  the  Jews  would 
at  once  have  replied,  you  preach  not  the  whole  promise  made 
to  our  father  Abraham,  for  it  expressly  embraces  our  "chil- 
dren"   "our   little    ones:"   if  we    enter    the   Christian 


THE    GREAT    COMMISSION.  273 


church,  therefore,  we  must  be  permitted  to  take  our  chil- 
dren with  us. 

The  fact  that  the  apostle  states  repentance  as  a  pre- 
requisite, has  reference  alone  to  those  of  responsible  age,  and 
cannot  therefore  invalidate  the  title  of  children  to  baptism 
which  they  had,  because  included  in  the  promise.  Reference 
to  "the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  in  this  passage,  places  no 
barrier  in  the  way  of  infant  baptism — for  it  must  first  be 
proved  that  no  special  blessing  is  conferred  upon  children 
who  are  baptized,  before  this  objection  can  be  of  any  force. 
If  there  be  any  efficacy  in  the  prayers  of  God's  people  at 
the  time,  or  any  benefit  connected  with  covenanted  privileges, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  certain  special  spiritual  influences 
are  communicated  to  the  child  consecrated  to  God  in  bap- 
tism, but  to  what  extent,  it  cannot,  in  the  very  nature  of 
things,  be  definitely  assumed.  The  phrase,  "As  many  as 
the  Lord  our  God  shall  call/'  includes  both  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles, in  all  ages*  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  who  shall 
hear  and  obey  the  gospel.  It  is  objected  by  Baptist  writers, 
that  "the  promise  referred  to  is  evidently  that  which  the 
apostle  had  previously  announced  in  the  closing  verse  of  the 
passage  he  had  quoted  from  the  prophet  Joel :  "  Whosoever 
shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved. "  Hin- 
ton's  Hist,  of  Baptism,  p.  92.  And  Judson  and  Pendleton 
observe,  "It  is  evident  that  this  promise  refers,  not  to  the 
covenant  of  Abraham,  but  to  the  promise  recorded  in  Joel 
ii.  28  :  'And  it  shall  come  to  pass  saith  God,  I  will  pour 
out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh,  and  your  sons  and  your  daugh- 
ters shall  prophecy/  &c."  Judson  on  Baptism,  p.  49.  Pen- 
dleton on  Baptism  and  Communion,  p.  26.  To  this  objec- 
tion, we  reply,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  covenant  made 
with  Abraham  is  commonly,  in  the  Xew  Testament,  referred 
to  as  the  Promise,  in  contradistinction  to  the  ceremonial 
and  temporal  promise*  of  the  Old  Testament.     "For  the 


274  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


promise,  that  he  should  be  heir  of  the  world,  was  not  to 
Abraham  or  to  his  seed,  through  the  law,  but  through  the 
righteousness  of  faith.  For  if  they  which  are  of  the  law 
be  h^irs,  faith  is  made  void,  and  the  promise  of  none  effect. 
Therefore  it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be  by  grace;  to  the 
end  that  the  promise  might  be  sure  to  all  the  seed;  not  to 
that  only  which  is  of  the  law,  but  to  that  also  which  is  of 
the  faith  of  Abraham,  who  is  the  father  of  us  all.  The 
covenant  which  was  before  confirmed  of  God  in  Christ,  the 
law,  which  was  430  years  after,  cannot  disannul,  that  it 
should  make  the  promise  of  none  effect.  For  if  the  inherit- 
ance be  of  the  law,  it  is  no  more  promise;  but  God  gave 
it  to  Abraham  by  promise."  Romans  iv.  13,  14.  Gal.  iii. 
17,  &c.  Gal.  iv.  28.  This  was  the  "promise"  to  which 
Peter  referred  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  In  the  second 
place,  the  same  apostle,  on  another  occasion,  proposes  the 
same  argument,  to  the  same  people,  the  Jews,  in  other  lan- 
guage: "Ye  are  the  children  of  the  covmant  which  God 
made  with  our  fathers,  saying  unto  Abraham,  and  in  thy 
seed  shall  all  the  kindreds  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  Acts 
iii.  25.  On  this  occasion,  the  apostle  enforces  repentance 
for  the  remission  of  sins,  (ver.  19;)  so  that  no  one  can  en- 
tertain a  rational  doubt  respecting  his  meaning  in  this  in- 
stance ;  and  thus  the  apostle  explains  his  own  words  as  refer- 
ring to  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham.  In  the  third 
place,  Peter's  reference  to  "all  that  are  afar  off,"  is  proof 
that  he  referred  to  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  The  Jews 
were  already  in  the  church,  and  hence  did  not  need  a  new 
call  into  it, — "the  promise  is  to  you  and  your  children." 
But  the  Gentiles  were  "afar  off" — and  hence  the  reference 
of  Peter  could  not  have  been  to  the  prophecy  of  Joel,  which 
belonged  to  the  Jews,  but  to  the  covenant  made  with  Abra- 
ham, in  whose  "seed  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  should  be 
blessed."     Peter  therefore,  when  he  said,  "the  promise  is 


SUFFER   LITTLE    CHILDREN.  276 


to  }Tou  and  jour  children,"  had  his  mind  on  the  Ahrahamic 
covenant.  In  the  fourth  place,  how  can  it  be  possible  that 
Peter  referred  to  the  prophecy  of  Joel  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, when  he  says  expressly  that  the  prophecy  of  Joel 
referred  to  the  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Spirit  bestowed,  and 
wonderful  events  exhibited  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  ?  Peter 
vindicated  these  miraculous  displays  of  the  Holy  Spirit  by 
referring  to  the  prophecy  of  Joel :  that  is,  the  prophecy  of 
Joel  referred  to  the  baptism  of  fire,  the  mighty  rushing 
wind,  the  speaking  with  tongues,  the  prophesying,  and  all 
the  stupendous  scenes  witnessed  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 
All  this  was  distinct  from  the  reference  made  by  Peter  to 
the  "promise"  made  to  Abraham:  he  refers  to  this,  not 
in  vindication  of  the  solemn  scenes  of  the  day,  but  as  en- 
couragement to  those  who  were  cut  to  the  heart  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  under  his  preaching.  In  the  fifth  place,  the  miracu- 
lous gifts  referred  to  by  Joel,  and  poured  out  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  upon  the  apostles  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  are  not 
poured  out  upon  all  the  Jews,  their  children,  and  those  who 
are  afar  off;  and  hence  the  "promise"  that  embraces  all 
"the  Jews,"  their  children,  and  those  who  are  "afar  off,"  was 
the  Abrahamic  covenant,  and  not  the  prophecy  of  Joel. 
And  finally,  no  matter  whether  "the  promise"  referred  to 
was  the  prophecy  of  Joel  or  the  Abrahamic  covenant;  in 
either  case,  it  is  made  by  Peter  the  reason  for  the  baptism 
of  ch  ildren. 

3.  "But  Jesus  said,  suffer  little  children,  and  forbid 
them  not,  to  come  unto  me,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  God."  9  First,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  often  means  the 
church  of  God  on  earth;  that  is,  as  the  church  has  already 
been  organized  under  the  old  dispensation,  and  the  right  of 
children  to  membership  in  it  has  been  continued,  suffer  them 

10  Matt.  xix.  14. 


276  INFANT    BAPTTSM. 


to  come  unto  ine,  for  of  such  is  my  church,  whose  founda- 
tion t  am  about  to  establish  by  my  death.  Repeal  not  the 
old  law,  or  that  part  of  the  original  constitution  that  pro- 
vides for  the  church  membership  of  children.  Secondly, 
the  phrase,  "  kingdom  of  heaven/'  sometimes  refers  to  the 
kingdom  of  glory.  If  so,  then  by  the  most  forcible  infer- 
ence, infants  are  worthy  of  association  with  the  church  or 
kingdom  of  God  on  earth.  What !  worthy  of  the  kingdom 
of  glory,  through  the  merits  of  Christ,  and  yet  not  worthy, 
through  the  same  merits,  of  association  with  the  church, 
which  is  so  soon  to  compose  a  part  of  the  kingdom  of  glory ! 
Worthy  of  association  with  angels  and  archangels,  cherubim 
and  seraphim,  principalities,  powers,  thrones,  and  dominions, 
in  heaven,  and  yet  not  worthy  of  association  with  imperfect 
men  on  earth!  What,  while  holy  angels  with  joy  stand  at 
the  portals  of  immortality  to  receive  the  infant  saints,  and 
bear  them  to  the  Saviour,  men,  pious  men,  cherishing  in- 
tensely the  hope  of  reunion  with  their  children  in  heaven, 
stand  with  a  scrupulous  vigilance  at  the  door  of  the  church 
on  earth,  and  deny  them  a  formal  recognition  of  their  right 
to  all  the  blessings  of  the  atonement!  While  Christ  re- 
ceived them  graciously,  and  pressed  them  tenderly  to  his 
bosom  on  earth,  the  church  of  Christ  repulses  them  from 
her  bosom !  and  thinks  she  is  acting  the  part  of  a  mother ! 
that  she  inflicts  no  positive  injury  upon  the  "  babes  in 
Christ!"  While  the  church  triumphant  receives  children 
into  the  dearest,  holiest  communion,  the  church  militant, 
contending  amid  the  trials  and  perils  of  time,  denies  them 
admission  into  her  safe  and  hallowed  courts,  and  excludes 
them  from  a  participation  in  her  sacred  and  holy  privileges ! 
Why  are  the  two  great  branches  of  the  church,  the  one 
entered  upon  retribution,  and  the  other  in  probation,  still 
under  the  covenant  of  grace  on  earth,  so  different  in  this 
respect  ?     Here  is  a  family :  the  parents  are  in  the  Baptist 


SUFFER    LITTLE    CHILDREN. 


church.  The  parents  die  in  the  triumphs  of  faith,  and 
ascend  to  the  church  triumphant,  leaving  their  child,  a 
young  heir  of  glory,  excluded  from  the  church  on  earth. 
But  the  child  soon  follows,  and  is  reunited  with  his  parents 
in  heaven — though  he  lived  and  died  out  of  the  church  on 
earth — though  he  was  denied  association,  by  a  formal  dedi- 
cation, with  the  church  on  earth — though  the  title  of  chil- 
dren under  the  covenant  is  as  good  before  as  after  death, 
and  though  the  title  of  Christ  to  the  infant  is  the  same  on 
earth  as  it  is  in  heaven.  And  hence,  as  Christ  and  his 
church  are  the  same  in  heaven  and  on  earth,  and  children 
are  worthy  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven — worthy  of  its  glories, 
and  association  with  saints  and  angels  in  the  immediate 
presence  of  Christ — they  are  worthy  of  association  with  the 
church  on  earth. 

"I  take  these  little  lambs/'  said  he, 
"And  lay  them  in  my  breast; 
Protection  they  shall  find  in  me, 
In  me  be  ever  blest. 

"Death  may  the  bands  of  life  unloose, 
But  can't  dissolve  my  love : 
Millions  of  infant  souls  compose 
The  family  above." 

"Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven. "  Blessed  opinion 
of  infants!  Let  it  be  the  epitaph  on  their  tombstone. 
"  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven/'  Blessed  Jesus,  we 
adopt  it,  and  say,  of  such  is  thy  church  ox  earth, 
since  what  thou  hast  judged  to  be  worthy  of  thy  church  in 
heaven,  we  cheerfully  acknowledge  is  entitled  to  formal  ad- 
mission into  thy  church  on  earth. 

Thus,  if  the  phrase,  "kingdom  of  heaven,"  means  the 
church  of  God  on  earth,  then  children  have,  upon  the 
authority  of  Christ  himself,  a  positive  recognition  of  the 
coBtinuation  of  their  original  title  to  church  membership — 

24 


278  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


and  the  question  of  infant  baptism  is  settled  for  ever  in 
their  favor.  But  if  the  phrase,  "kingdom  of  heaven/' 
means  the  kingdom  of  glory,  then  by  the  most  convincing 
and  satisfactory  inference,  children  have  a  right  to  associa- 
tion with  the  church  on. earth,  which  right  the  church  is 
bound  to  acknowledge  by  a  formal  and  solemn  consecration 
in  baptism.  That  is,  in  either  case,  infants  are  here  judged 
by  Infinite  Wisdom  capable  of  the  covenant  of  mercy;  and 
so  infants,  "  little  ones/'  were  admitted  into  covenant,  un- 
der the  Old  Testament  dispensation,  and  received  the  seal 
of  the  covenant.  Therefore,  "suffer  them  to  come  unto 
me."  But  Christ  is  not  now  present  with  us — how  then 
can  infants  be  brought  to  him  as  he  commands,  but  by  dedi- 
cation in  baptism?  This  is  the  general  argument.  But  to 
be  more  particular : 

The  original  term  as  used  by  Matthew  is,  rd  -atdia — ta 
paiclia — the  children;  and  as  used  by  Luke  is,  za  ftpier, — 
ta  brephe — the  very  little  children;  "for  of  such"  very  little 
children  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  That  is,  little  children 
who  have  not  yet  arrived  at  an  age  of  accountability — all 
"such"  are  unconditionally  entitled  to  all  the  blessings  of 
my  death,  and  embraced  in  my  promise,  or  the  everlasting 
covenant;  and  consequently  they  should  receive  the  seal  of 
the  covenant,  and  so  be  received  into  my  visible  church. 
They  have  the  thing  signified,  which  is  membership  in  the 
spiritual  church,  and  therefore  they  should  have  the  sign  of 
it,  which  is  baptism.  The  phrase,  "  the  little  children,"  is 
strictly  specific  and  designative,  and  thus  Christ  himself 
positively  declares  that  all  children  indiscriminately  are 
unconditionally  entitled  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  But  if 
children  have  a  right  to  heaven,  or  the  state  of  blessedness 
after  death,  this  is  the  very  right  of  the  believer  which  is 
recognised  in  baptism ;  indeed,  this  is  the  highest  and  most 
important  signification  of  baptism  as  a  seal  on  the  part  of 


SUFFER   LITTLE   CHILDREN.  279 


G-od.  Believers  are  "heirs  of  God,  and  joint  heirs  with 
Christ" — heirs  to  "an  inheritance  incorraptible :"  so  are 
children.  But  baptism,  as  a  seal  on  the  part  of  God, 
formally  recognises  the  heirship  of  the  believer ;  hence  chil- 
dren, who  are  invested  with  the  same  heirship,  are  entitled 
to  the  same  formal  recognition  as  heirs  of  God,  and  joint 
heirs  with  Christ. 

But  if  the  expression,  "kingdom  of  God,"  mean  the 
invisible,  spiritual  church,  which  is  composed  of  all  true 
believers,  then  infants  are  in  the  same  church  with  believers, 
and  so  should  be  baptized.  But  further,  if  the  expression, 
"kingdom  of  God,"  mean  the  visible  church,  then  the  point 
in  debate  is  at  once  settled  in  favor  of  the  baptism  of  infants. 
But  yet  further,  the  kingdom  of  God  comprehends  all  the 
redeemed  on  earth  and  in  heaven,  that  is,  the  church  in 
heaven,  the  spiritual  or  invisible,  and  the  church  on  earth, 
the  visible ;  therefore  to  be  a  member  of  the  spiritual  church, 
is  to  be  a  member  of  the  whole  church,  except  its  visible 
organization,  in  which  baptism  is  incorporated  by  divine 
enactment  as  a  sensible  formal  recognition  of  association 
already  existing  with  the  spiritual  church,  as  is  the  case 
with  children;  so  that  children  cannot  be  excluded  from 
baptism,  without  excluding  them  from  the  kingdom  of  God 
altogether.  Admit  that  children  are  associated  with  Christ's 
spiritual  kingdom — and  no  one  will  deny  this — and  it  follows, 
that  they  have  a  right  to  the  whole  kingdom,  visible  and 
invisible ;  and  baptism  is  the  formal  seal  of  this  right  now 
existing — a  comprehensive  right  to  be  enjoyed  conditionally, 
should  they  live  to  adult  age,  and  unconditionally,  should 
they  die  in  infancy.  "The  kingdom  of  God,  is  a  phrase 
which  is  constantly  employed  in  Scripture  to  denote  that 
state  of  things  which  is  placed  under  the  avowed  administra- 
tion of  the  Messiah."  Robert  Hall's  Works,  vol.  i.  372. 
Children,  then,  being  under  the  avowed  administration  of 


280  INFANT   BAPTISM. 


Christ,  which  extends  over  the  church  in  heaven  and  on 
earth,  cannot  be  justly  excluded  from  baptism,  without 
legitimately  excluding  them  from  the  administration  of 
Christ  altogether. 

It  has  been  objected,  that  these  little  children  were  youth, 
arrived  at  accountable  age.  But  Matthew  and  Mark  say, 
"They  brought  unto  him,  -aidca — paidia — LITTLE  children," 
— not  T>o.>.das — -paidas — children  or  youth.  And  Luke,  as 
we  have  observed,  says,  "  They  brought  unto  him  also,  rd. 
^fj(crt — ta  brephe — INFANTS,"  which  identical  word  is  trans- 
lated babe  in  other  parts  of  the  Xew  Testament.11  Besides, 
the  command  of  Christ  has  reference  to  infants  while  in  a 
state  of  infancy,  or  it  can  have  no  meaning  that  is  intelligi- 
ble. Bring  them  to  me  now,  while  they  are  babes,  which 
injunction  can  have  no  reference  to  education,  at  such  a 
time,  but  positively  enjoins  a  formal  consecration  of  them 
to  the  service  of  Christ.  It  has  been  assumed,  that  "of 
such"  signifies  adult  Christians  of  a  childlike  disposition. 
But  the  reason  why  children  were  brought  to  Christ  to  be 
blessed  by  him,  is  to  be  found  in  themselves :  "  they  brought 
little  children,  that  he  might  put  his  hands  on  them,  and 
bless  them — and  he  took  them  in  his  arms,  and  blessed 
them."  Moreover,  what  reason  could  there  be  to  bless  little 
children  because  adult  Christians  were  to  be  of  a  childlike 
disposition  ?  Besides,  he  had  presented  the  child  specifically 
as  a  model  for  adult  Christians  on  another  occasion:  "Ex- 
cept ye  be  converted,  and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall 
not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 13 

"But,  ah,"  says  another,  "these  little  children  were  young 
Christians."  Not  so,  for  they  were  brought  to  Jesus. 
Secondly,  "  Jesus  took  them  up  in  his  arms."     And  thirdly, 


11  For  instance,  Luke  i.  41-44;  ii.  12-16;  Acts  vii.  19;  1  Pet.  ii.  2. 

12  Matt,  xviii.  3. 


SUFFER    LITTLE    CHILDREN.  281 


the  disciples  never  would  have  "  rebuked"  any  for  bringing 
young  Christians  to  Jesus  that  he  might  bless  them.  But 
that  no  doubt  may  remain  respecting  the  age  of  these  little 
children,  consider  the  following  testimony  from  Matthew 
Matthew  and  all  the  Evangelists  agree,  that  Jesus  compared 
his  real  disciples  to  these  little  children,  when  he  said,  as 
above,  "  Except  ye  be  converted,  and  become  as  little  chil- 
dren," &c.  The  displeasure  manifested  by  the  disciples  was 
exhibited,  in  the  expression  of  Jewish  feelings,  by  the 
Pharisees,  upon  Christ's  entry  into  Jerusalem:  "who,  when 
they  saw  the  children  crying  in  the  temple,  Hosanna  tc 
the  Son  of  David!  were  sore  displeased ;  and  said  unto  him, 
Hearest  thou  what  these  say  ?  And  Jesus  answered  them, 
have  ye  never  read,  out  of  the  mouths  of  babes  and  suck- 
lings thou  HAST  perfected  praise  V  Certainly  babes 
and  sucklings  were  infants ;  and  certainly,  if  out  of  their 
mouths  God  had  perfected  praise,  they  ought  to  be  included 
by  baptism  with  those  who  render  him  imperfect  praises. 
And  so  when  little  children  were  brought  to  Christ  for  his 
blessing,  the  disciples  rebuked  those  that  brought  them; 
that  is,  thought  them  too  young  to  receive  any  spiritual 
good.  But  Mark  describes  our  Lord  as  being  "  much  dis- 
pleased''  at  the  conduct  of  his  disciples,  immediately 
assuring  them  that  infants  are  entitled  to  his  blessing, 
because  they  are  of  his  kingdom,  or,  under  the  everlasting 
covenant,  entitled  to  membership  in  the  Christian  church. 
How  indeed,  after  these  rebukes,  could  the  disciples  of 
Christ  and  the  haughty  Pharisees  look  with  indifference 
upon  "  little  07ies" — "  babes  and  sucklings  ?n  And  why 
should  we  hesitate  a  moment  to  consecrate  them  to  him  by 
baptism,  who,  with  ineffable  tenderness,  benignity,  and  love, 
took  them  in  his  arms,13  put  his  hands  upon  them,  and  blessed 

13  Dr.  Clarke,  in  his  commentary,  observes,  "'And  he  took  them  up  in 
his  arms' — one  of  the  Itala  reads  in  sinu  suo — 'in  his  bosom.'     Jesus 
24* 


282  IN1ANT    BAPTISM. 


them,  and  accepted  their  hosannas  as  the  perfection  of  his 
praise  ? 

4.  "  Except  ye  be  converted,  and  become  as  little  chil- 
dren, ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  14 

Here  the  child  is  made  the  standard  of  the  adult  believer. 
Such  a  person  is  baptized  as  a  copy,  and  received  into  the 
church,  preparatory  to  his  reception  into  heaven.  What, 
baptize  the  copy,  and  not  the  standard  ?  Receive  the  copy 
into  the  church  because  it  conforms  to  the  standard,  and  yet 
reject  the  standard!  Why,  it  seems  that  the  standard  were 
incomplete  if  it  be  not  baptized;  indeed,  that  the  standard 
has  a  stronger  claim  to  church  membership  than  the  copy, 
or  at  least  that  the  child  should  be  baptized  before  the  copy 
can  properly  and  legally  recognise  it  as  a  standard.  In  a 
word,  one  who  baptizes  adult  believers  as  little  children, 
cannot  refuse  baptism  to  the  little  children  themselves. 

5.  "As  by  the  offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon 
all  men  to  condemnation;  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of 
one  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of 
life."" 

Adults  who  present  themselves  for  admission  into  the 
church  by  baptism,  are  in  a  state  of  "justification,"  accept- 
ance, and  pardon,  obtained  by  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  But  as  infants,  who  had  been  brought  into  a  state 
of  condemnation  by  the  "offence  of  Adam,"  have  be-m  re- 
stored to  a  state  of  justification,  pardon,  and  divine  favor, 

Christ  loves  little  children:  and  they  are  the  objects  of  his  most  peculiar 
care.  Who  can  account  for  their  continual  preservation  and  support 
■while  exposed  to  so  many  dangers,  but  on  the  ground  of  a  peculiar  and 
extraordinary  providence  ?"  And  he  adds,  under  the  next  verse,  "  though 
little  ch  ildren,  they  were  capable  of  receiving  Christ's  blessing."  If  Christ 
embraced  them,  why  should  not  his  church  embrace  them?  "Why  not 
dedicate  them  to  God  by  baptism?  And  he  ascribes  neglect  of  this  duty 
to  "unaccountable  bigotry  or  carelessness." 

14  Matt,  xviii.  3.  15  Rom.  v.  18. 


OTHER  SCRIPTURES  IN  PROOF.  ^83 


by  the  "  righteousness"  or  atonement  of  Christ,  tuey  also 
should  be  received  into  the  church  by  baptism.  In  other 
words,  all  persons,  without  exception,  who  are  in  a  state  of 
"justification/'  ought  to  be  baptized.  Infants  are  in  a  state 
of  justification,  and  therefore  they  ought  to  be  baptized. 

6.  "  For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ 
have  put  on  Christ." l6 

That  is,  ye  who  have  been  baptized,  whether  in  infancy 
or  adult  age,  have  entered  into  the  visible  kingdom  of  Christ, 
since  baptism  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  is  substituted 
as  a  badge  of  profession,  for  circumcision,  as  a  badge  of  pro- 
fession, under  the  Jewish  dispensation.  And  so  the  follow- 
ing verse:  "If  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed, 
and  heirs  according  to  the  promise."  Now  Abraham,  under 
a  different  dispensation,  but  under  the  same  covenant  of 
</raee,  was  permitted  to  bring  his  children  with  him  into 
covenant  with  God ;  and  as  a  change  of  dispensations  does 
not  affect  any  change  in  the  general  covenant  of  grace,  con- 
sequently the  corresponding  change  of  the  initiatory  rite 
from  circumcision  to  baptism,  does  not  exclude  infants  from 
covenant  relations  under  the  Christian  dispensation.  That 
is,  believers  in  Christ,  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  are 
reckoned  as  children  of  Abraham.  Faith  brings  the  Gentile 
parent  into  the  same  relation  to  the  covenant  of  salvation 
that  Abraham  sustained  by  faith  under  the  Abrahamic  dis- 
pensation; and  therefore  the  children  of  Gentile  believers 
are  as  much  entitled  to  the  initiating  seal  of  the  covenant 
under  the  Christian  dispensation,  as  the  children  of  Abra- 
ham were  under  the  covenant  when  made  with  him. 

7.  "That  the  covenant  that  was  confirmed  before  in 
Christ,  the  law,  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years 
after,  cannot  disannul,  that  it  should  make  the  promise  of 

'6  Gal.  Hi.  27. 


284  INFANT   BAPTISM. 


none  effect." 17  The  right  OF  CHILDREN,  therefore,  to  the 
outward,  visible  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant,  is  POSITIVELY 
CONFIRMED  and  CONTINUED  under  the  gospel.  "None 
effect" — cannot  effect  any  change  in  rights  of  children  set 
forth  in  the  original  constitution.  The  Baptists  call  for 
positive  commands — here  is  a  clear,  unqualified,  compre- 
hensive, positive  recognition  of  the  entire  scope  of  the 
original  covenant  of  grace  made  with  Abraham — and  that 
covenant  specifically  recognised  the  right  of  children  to  cove- 
nant relations,  which  right,  Paul  positively  declares,  has  not 
been  annulled,  but  is  still  in  full  force. 

8.  "Moreover,  brethren,  I  would  not  that  ye  should  be 
ignorant  how  that  all  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud, 
and  all  passed  through  the  sea;  and  were  ALL  baptized  unto 
Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  18 

Why  would  not  the  apostle  have  us  ignorant  of  this  im- 
pressive and  important  circumstance  of  the  Jewish  dispensa- 
tion ?  Because  he  regarded  it  in  the  solemn  character  of  an 
"example."  (Ver.  11.)  And  who  were  these  "fathers?" 
They  were  those  very  Jews  who  came  out  of  Egypt,  and 
were  destroyed  in  the  wilderness,  and  those  little  ones, 
children,  which  in  that  day — the  time  of  the  passage  of  the 
Red  Sea — "  had  no  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,"  and,  sur- 
viving the  journey  through  the  wilderness,  entered  with 
Joshua  into  the  possession  of  Canaan.  Thus,  the  baptism 
of  these  "little  ones"  happened  unto  them  "for  our  ex- 
amples, upon  whom  the  ends  of  the  world  are  come."  Be- 
sides, ru-ot,  tupoi,  here  translated  "examples,"  generally 
has  a  figurative  signification  in  the  Old  Testament,  repre- 
senting some  future  institutions  under  the  New  Testament, 
and  therefore  may  be  regarded  somewhat  in  the  light  of 
prophecy.     And  thus,  as  the  baptism  of  the  fathers  and 

"  Gal.  iii.  17.  18  1  Cor.  x.  1,  2. 


OTHER    SCRIPTURES    IN    PROOF.  285 


their  children,  under  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,  bound  them 
over  to  legal  obedience,  and  united  them  to  the  church  in 
the  wilderness,  so  the  apostle  reminds  us  that  baptism,  un- 
der the  gospel  dispensation,  binds  believers  and  their  chil- 
dren to  evangelical  obedience,  and  unites  them  with  the 
Christian  church.  If  such  be  not  the  meaning  of  the  pas- 
sage before  us,  then  the  apparent  solicitude  of  the  apostle  is 
divested  of  its  impressive  force  and  dignity.  The  "fathers" 
referred  to  were  baptized  in  infancy,  "in  the  cloud  and  in 
the  sea/'  and  the  apostle  expressly  designates  and  enjoins 
their  baptism  as  AN  example  for  rs.  The  Baptists  de- 
mand either  precept  or  example  for  infant  baptism  in  the 
Bible:  here  are  both  in  the  same  chapter. 

9.  "That  he  might  gather  together  in  one  all  things  in 
Christ,  both  which  are  in  heaven,  and  which  are  on  earth, 
even  in  him."19  Are  children  through  mercy  in  Christ 
worthy  of  union  in  this  general  association?  Are  they  to 
be  regarded  as  the  babes  in  this  vast  family  of  God  ?  Un- 
questionably they  are.  Then  they  ought  to  be  formally 
admitted  into  his  church. 

10.  "For  the  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the 
wife;  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband; 
else  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy."  *» 

The  apostle  here  incidentally  refers  to  the  practice  of 
infant  baptism,  as  if  it  were  a  subject  universally  admitted 
in  his  days.  "Else  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now 
they  are  holy,"  that  is,  aytd,  here  translated  "holy,"  com- 
monly means  those  who  are  baptized  into  the  faith  of  Christ. 
Its  corresponding  Hebrew  term,  kedushim,  signified  all  the 
Jews  who  entered  into  covenant  with  God,  under  the  Jewish 
dispensation,  by  circumcision — and  infants  were  circum- 
cised.    And  so  the  Jews  considered  the  children  of  heathens 

is  Eph.  i.  10.  2°  1  Cor.  vii.  14. 


286  INFANT   BAPTISM. 


unholy  who  were  born  before  their  parents  became  prose- 
lytes, and  all  the  children  holy  who  were  born  after  their 
parents  became  proselytes.  The  apostle  does  not  mean  that 
holiness  of  nature  is  hereditary,  but  that  relatively,  children 
are  entitled  to  baptism. 

If  the  Baptists  so  explain  these  scriptures  as  to  make 
them  inapplicable  to  infants,  then  I  ask,  in  what  scriptures 
is  the  salvation  of  infants  referred  to?  All  such  scriptures 
will  support  our  argument  just  as  well  as  those  we  have 
adduced.  But  if  they  explain  these  away,  and  all  others 
like  them,  they  cut  off,  at  a  single  stroke,  the  last  hope  of 
infant  salvation;  because  upon  this  mode  of  interpretation, 
the  absence  of  all  reference  in  the  Scriptures,  expressed  or 
implied,  to  infant  salvation,  as  certainly  deprives  them  of 
all  title  to  salvation,  as  the  absence  of  scriptures  explicitly 
recognising  and  confirming  the  title  of  children  to  church 
membership  would  deprive  them  of  baptism.  Certainly, 
the  foundation  of  the  Baptist  Church  is  not  established 
upon  the  condemnation  of  all  infants  under  the  Christian 
dispensation.  And  yet  I  do  not  see  how  it  is  possible  to 
deny  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism,  the  sign,  without  at 
the  same  time  denying  their  right  to  salvation,  the  thing 
signified :  and  so  we  conclude,  all  scriptures  that  recognise 
infants  as  proper  subjects  of  salvation,  without  the  discharge 
of  any  conditions  on  their  part,  at  the  same  time  compre- 
hend a  recognition  of  their  right  to  baptism,  independently 
of  the  discharge  of  any  conditions  on  their  part  whatever. 
And  when  to  this  consideration  it  is  added,  that  there 

ARE  SCRIPTURES  THAT  FURNISH  BOTH  PRECEPT  AND  EX- 
AMPLE FOR  INFANT  BAPTISM,  THE  CONCLUSION  IS  IN  THE 
HIGHEST  DEGREE  SATISFACTORY,  THAT  INFANT  BAPTISM  IS 
AN  INSTITUTION  OF  THE  CHURCH,  under  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation, and  made  solemnly  binding  on  the  church  to  the 
end  of  time. 


OIKOS OIKIA.  287 


CHAPTER  V. 

SCRIPTURAL   ARGUMENT   CONTINUED. 

Oikos — Oikia.1 

Infant  baptism  derives  the  strongest  support  from  a 
proper  discrimination  between  the  meaning  of  the  terms 
o\xo$,  oikos — and  ouia,  oikia.  If  the  translators  of  the 
Gld  and  New  Testaments  had  observed  the  difference  in  the 
specific  meaning  of  these  two  terms,  the  Baptist  Church 
never  could  have  obtained  a  distinct  and  separate  existence 
in  the  world.  Upon  a  candid  examination  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  it  will  be  found,  that  the  sacred  writers 
use  the  term  oikos,  house,  in  the  specific  sense  of  family, 
with  special  reference  to  infants;  and,  therefore,  when  the 
apostles  say  they  baptized  houses,  whole  houses,  the  terms 
are  synonymous  with  families,  and  are  used  with  special 
reference  to  infants  as  included  in  the  sacred  rite.  Indeed, 
the  more  learned  Baptists  now  admit,  that  the  term  oikos, 
as  it  is  now  used  in  the  New  Testament,  is  synonymous  with 
family,  and  consequently,  that  it  includes  infants — and  as 
the  learned  are  the  only  proper  judges  of  an  argument  of 
this  character,  the  validity  and  authority  of  infant  baptism 
are  hereby  supported  and  established  by  the  unanimous 
decision  of  the  learned  world. 

These  terms  are  not  interchangeable. 

1.  Let   us    first   investigate    the    meaning    of  the    term 

1  See  Taylor's  Apostolic  Baptism. 


283  INTANT    BAPTISM. 


OIK  [A,  oikia.  "And  the  wise  men  came  into  the  oikia — 
out-houses — the  stable  where  the  young  child  was,  and  found 
him  and  his  parents."2  "He  (Peter)  lodgeth  with  one 
Simon,  a  tanner,  whose  oikia  is  by  the  seaside."3  Now  a 
tanner's  business  requires  much  space,  and  several  out- 
houses, and  so  Simon  selected  the  seaside.  The  men  who 
were  sent  to  inquire  for  Peter,  inquired  for  the  oikia  of 
Simon,  and  stood  before  the  gate  of  the  tanner's  yard.4 

Consider  Peter's  supernatural  deliverance  from  prison,  as 
it  is  described  in  the  12th  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
"And  when  he  had  considered  the  thing  he  came  to  the 
house — oilcia — of  Mary;  and  he  knocked  at  the  door  of  the 
gate" — the  outer  gate.  And  Rhoda  came  out  to  listen,  but 
"  she  opened  not  the  gate  for  gladness,  but  ran  in" — (ver.  14 ;) 
ran  across  the  court-yard  back  again — "  and  told  how  Peter 
stood  before  the  gate."  Oikos  is  never  substituted  for  oikia. 
Throughout  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  the  sacred  writers 
never  interchange  the  one  for  the  other;  every  writer  pre- 
serves a  distinction.  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  all  say  of 
the  paralytic,  "take  up  thy  bed,  and  go  to  thy  house — 
oikort."  "Devouring  widow's  houses" — oikia,  not  oikos. 
The  dwelling  of  Cornelius  is  called  his  oikos,  by  the  servants 
of  Cornelius,  by  Cornelius  himself,  and  by  Peter  twice  ;5  but 
the  dwelliDg  of  Simon,  the  tanner,  is  called  oikia,  by  the 
angel,  by  the  evangelist,  by  Cornelius,  and  by  Peter. 
Again :  oikos  is  a  masculine  noun,  and  oikia  is  feminine. 
Ma>culine  and  feminine  nouns  are  not  interchangeable  in  the 
Greek.  Again :  a  part  can  never  be  equivalent  to  the 
whole,  nor  be  interchangeable  with  it.  Oikos  may  be  a 
part  of  oikia,  and  thus  the  notion  of  a  retired  apartment  of 
■\  large  building  is  frequently  expressed  by  the  term  oikos 
by  the  ancient  Greek  writers. 

-'  Mar;.  iL  11.  ?  Acts  x.  6.         4  Acts  xi.  11.  5  Acts  xi.  12,  13. 


OIKOS — OIKIA.  289 


2.  The  term  oihos  alone  is  used  in  the  sense  of  family, 
and  children  are  the  primary  and  immediate  objects 
of  oihos,  house,  family.  It  is  impossible  to  separate 
the  idea  of  children  from  the  term  oikos,  house,  family. 
Thus,  " house  of  Israel" — "house  of  Jacob" — " house  of 
Judah" — "house  of  David" — imply  young  children,  infants; 
for  without  the  infants,  what  becomes  of  the  family,  of  the 
house,  of  the  nation  ?  And  so  in  the  instances  of  Cornelius, 
the  jailer,  Lydia,  Stephanus,  Crispus,  Onesiphorus,  Aris- 
tobulus,  and  Narcissus,  with  many  believers  who  formed  the 
Church  of  Corinth,  and  the  families  of  the  bishop,  the 
deacon,  and  the  young  women,  referred  to  in  the  Epistle  to 
Timothy,  it  is  incredible  to  suppose  children,  infants,  are 
not  included. 

3.  Oikia  includes  more  than  the  family,  as  it  some- 
times includes  the  slaves,  servants,  or  attendants  of  the 
family.  "Be  not  as  a  lion  in  thy  house,  oikia,  nor  frantic 
among  thy  servants."6  "As  the  sun  rising  in  heaven,  is  a 
good  wife  to  her  household" 7 — oikias.  "  All  the  saints  salute 
you,  especially  those  who  are  of  Caesar's  household" s — oikias. 
But  not  one  of  Caesar's  family  was  at  this  time  converted  to 
Christianity,  while  some  of  his  household  servants,  attend- 
ants, or  courtiers  were,  as  we  are  informed  in  the  Scriptures : 
here  oikia  is  used,  and  does  not  include  children. 

4.  There  cannot  be  better  authority  than  Aristotle 
on  this  subject,  who,  writing  on  the  polity  of  cities, 
thus  defines  a  house:  "A  house  is  a  society  or  companion- 
ship connected  together  according  to  the  course  of  nature, 
for  long  continuance."  Such  a  society  is  called  by  Cha- 
rondas,  "those  who  eat  from  the  same  cupboard,"  or  pantry; 
but  it  is  called  by  Epimenides,  "those  who  sit  around  the 
same  fireside;"  or,  as  Du  Val,  the  editor  of  Aristotle,  Slip- 


is  Eccles.  iv.  30.  7  Ibid.  xxvi.  16.  s  Philip,  iy.  22. 

25 


290  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


poses,  "  those  who  sit  around  the  same  table  "  Such  a  so- 
ciety, says  Aristotle,  is  an  oikos  or  house.  Aristotle  also 
distinguishes  between  oikos,  house,  and  oikia,  household,  just 
as  the  Scripture  does.  Says  he,  "in  order  to  obtain  a  clear 
idea  of  the  parts  of  which  a  city  is  composed,  it  is  necessary 
that  we  should  previously  explain  what  an  oikia  is.  For 
every  city  is  composed  of  connected  oikias  :  and  further, 
an  oikia  is  composed  of  several  parts;  and  these  placed 
together  in  their  stations,  constitute  the  oikia.  But  a 
complete  oikia  comprises  those  who  are  servants,  and  those 
who  are  free"  Here  the  term  oikos,  house,  family,  ex- 
cludes the  oikia,  household;  but  the  term  oikia  includes 
the  oikos,  house.  Thus,  a  Greek  scholar  meeting  with  the 
term  oikos,  in  the  New  Testament,  would  understand  it  as 
follows: — "We  baptized  Lydia,  icith  her  family,  connected 
together  according  to  the  course  of  nature,  for  long  con- 
tinuance. We  baptized  the  jailer,  with  all  those  who  eat 
from  the  same  cupboard  with  himself.  I  baptized  those 
v;ho  sit  around  the  same  fi reside  or  eat  from  the  same  table 
with  my  valued  friend  Stephanus." 

The  Old  Testament  writers  use  the  term  oikos,  house,  in 
the  sense  as  above.  "Thou,  O  Lord  God  of  Israel,  hast 
revealed  to  thy  servant,  saying,  I  will  build  thee  a  house" 
— oikos9 — establish  thy  family.  "The  Lord  telleth  thee, 
he  will  make  thee  a  house" 10 — oikos.  "Now  let  it  please 
thee  to  bless  the  house — oikos — of  thy  servant — and  with 
thy  blessing  let  the  house — oikos,  family — of  thy  servant 
be  blessed  for  ever."  " 

5.  In  proof  that  the  term  oikos,  house,  has  special 
reference  to  children,  distinct  from  their  parents.  "  Then 
shall  his  brother's  wife  spit  in  his  face,  and  say,  So  shall  it 
be  done  unto  the  man  who  will  not  build  up  his  brother's 

9  2  Sara.  vii.  27.  10  2  Sam.  vii.  11.  »  2  Sam.  vii.  29. 


OIKOS OIKIA.  291 


house"12 — oikos.  So  in  other  scriptures.13  "  All  the  souls 
of  the  house — oikos — of  Jacob,  which  came  into  Egypt,  were 
threescore  and  ten." 14  But  it  is  stated  in  the  26th  verse, 
"  All  the  souls  that  came  with  Jacob  into  Egypt,  were  three- 
score and  six."  Here  the  former  number  cannot  be  made 
up  without  the  children  of  Joseph,  and  hence,  mathemati- 
cally and  strictly,  the  term  oikos  in  this  instance  includes 
infants,  as  may  be  further  proved.  "Xow  these  are  the 
names  of  the  children  of  Israel,  who  came  into  Egypt,  every 
man,  with  all  his  house"15 — -a/ow),  panoiki.  That  the  term 
panoiki  includes  little  children  is  evident  from  Gen.  xlvi.  5. 
"And  the  sods  of  Israel  carried  Jacob  their  father,  and  their 
little  ones,  &c.;  in  the  wagons  which  Pharaoh  had  sent  to 
carry  him."  Now  the  term  panoiki,  "with  all  his  house," 
is  the  same  that  is  used  in  the  instance  of  the  jailer's  bap- 
tism; and  as  the  apostles  deviated,  not  from  the  long-settled 
and  popular  meaning  of  the  language  in  which  they  wrote, 
the  term  panoiki  in  the  case  of  the  jailer's  baptism,  as 
clearly  includes  infants  as  it  does  in  the  case  of  all  Jacob's 
family.  In  the  case  of  the  baptism  of  Cornelius,  the  term 
employed  is  guv  T.avzi  za>  oix<o — "with  all  his  house,  feared 
God,  and  were  all  baptized."  Yes,  infants  feared  God — as 
Samuel  did,  when  he  "ministered"  in  the  sanctuary;  and 
as  Timothy  did,  when  he  "studied  the  Scriptures."  "The 
heave-offerings  have  I  given  to  thee  and  thy  sons,  and  to 
thy  daughters  with  thee,  every  one  that  is  clean  in  thy 
house" — oikos — family. l6  "I  will  raise  up  evil  against  thee 
[David]  out  of  thine  own  house" — oikos,  family.11 

This  meaning  of  the  term  oikos  was  adopted  by  the  apos- 
tles, as  is  evident  from  the  following  references,  in  which 
the  parents  are  explicitly  distinguished  from  their  children. 

12  Deut.  xxv.  9.  13  Gen.  xvi.  2  j  Gen.  xxx.  3,  dec. 

14  Gen.  xlvi.  27-31.  15  Ex.  i.  1. 

16  Num.  xviii.  11.  17  2  Sam.  xii.  11. 


292  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


Lydia,  and  her  house,  oikos ;  the  bishop,  and  his  house, 
oikos;  the  deacon,  and  his  house,  oikos  ;  the  family,  oikos, 
of  Stephanus>  separate  from  himself;  the  family,  oikos,  of 
Crispus,  separate  from  himself;  the  family,  oikos,  of  One- 
siphorus,  separate  from  himself:  all  of  which  clearly  and 
conclusively  imply  that  the  distinction  between  the  parents 
and  the  children  was  still  preserved,  and  that  special  refer- 
ence was  had  to  the  children. 

Oikos,  house,  in  the  Old  Testament,  sometimes  means 
infants  explicitly.  "Dathan  and  Abiram  came  out  and 
stood  in  the  door  of  their  tents,  and  their  wives,  and  their 
sons,  and  their  little  children.  And  the  earth  opened  her 
mouth,  and  swallowed  them  up,  and  their  houses' ' — oikos, 
that  is,  their  " little  children."18  "The  increase  of  his 
house — oikos — shall  depart."19  And  so  in  other  scrip- 
tures. 20  "  Their  children  also  shall  be  dashed  to  pieces  be- 
fore their  eyes;  their  houses — oikos — shall  be  spoiled."21 
"For  I  know  him  (Abraham)  that  he  will  command  his 
children,  even  his  house — oikos — after  him."  "And  all 
the  people  that  were  in  the  gate,  and  the  elders  said — The 
Lord  make  the  woman  that  is  come  into  thy  house  [dwelling- 
house]  like  Rachael  and  like  Leah,  which  two  did  build  the 
house — oikos — of  Israel:  and  let  thy  house — oikos, 
family — be  like  the  house — oikos — of  Pharez,  whom  Tamar 
bare  unto  Judah,  of  the  seed  which  the  Lord  shall  give  thee 
of  this  young  icoman."2*  If  there  were  no  other  text  in 
the  Bible  on  this  subject,  the  one  we  have  just  quoted  were 
sufficient  to  prove  that  oikos,  house,  means  infants,  expli- 
citly. Many  other  instances  might  be  added,  but  these  are 
sufficient  to  establish  the  sense  of  the  term  oikos,  as  it  is 
used  by  the  Old  Testament  writers.     This  sense  the  apostles 


'8  Num.  xvi.  27,  32.         19  Job  xx.  28.        2°  1  Sam.  ii.  3;  Ps.  lxviii.  6. 
21  Isa.  xiii.  16.  »  Ruth  iv.  11-12. 


OIKOS — OIKIA.  293 


adopted  and  continued.  And  hence,  when  it  is  said  that 
they  baptized  houses,  we  are  to  understand  that  the  term 
house  is  added,  with  special  reference  to  children,  in- 
fants. If  infants  had  been  excluded  from  baptism,  the 
term  oikos,  whose  popular  and  fixed  acceptation  was  known 
to  embrace  children,  would  have  been  omitted  in  the  sacred 
narrative.  If  the  apostles  intended  to  invest  this  term  with 
a  sense  entirely  new,  the  bold  intention  should  have  been 
explicitly  made  known  to  the  world.  But  so  far  from  devi- 
ating from  the  ancient,  common,  and  popular  sense  of  the 
term,  they  glee  it  the  most  comprehensive  meaning  possible. 
There  is  not  an  instance  in  the  Xew  Testament  in  which 
oikos,  house,  is  used,  but  it  embraces  children,  and  in 
many  places  distinct  from  their  parents.  Thus,  Paul  bap- 
tized the  family — oikos — of  Stephanus,  but  not  Stephanus 
himself;  he  salutes  the  family — oikos — of  Onesiphorus, 
but  omits  Onesiphorus  himself.  In  these  instances  the 
apostle  invests  the  term  with  the  greatest  possible  scope. 

Again :  it  embraces  children  in  the  youngest  possible  state 
in  life.  "One  [bishop]  that  ruleth  well  his  own  house — 
oikos — having  his  children  in  subjection  with  all  gravity. 
For  if  a  man  know  not  how  to  rule  his  own  house — oikos — 
how  shall  he  take  care  of  the  church  of  G-od."  B  Here  chil- 
dren are  the  house,  requiring  the  wise  and  prudent  manage- 
ment of  a  father.  And  so  with  respect  to  the  deacons : 
"Let  the  deacons  be  the  husband  of  one  wife,  ruling  their 
children,  even  their  own  houses — oikos — well."24  Indeed, 
the  term  oikos  imports  babes  and  sucklings.  "I  will  there- 
fore that  the  young  women  marry,  bear  children,  guide  the 
house"25 — o>zoos<j-o7£~.;,  oikodespotein,  that  is,  rule,  guide, 
direct  their  family,  children,  infants,  babes,  and  sucklings. 
That  such,  for  example,  was  the  character  of  Lydia's  family 


23  1  Tim.  iii.  -t,  5.  21  Ibid.  iii.  12.  25  1  Tim.  v.  14. 

25* 


294  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


is  evident.  It  is  said  of  Lydia,  that  "her  heart  was  opened 
by  the  Lord,  and  that  she  attended  to  the  things  spoken  by 
Paul."  But  nothing  is  said  of  her  family  until  her  baptism 
is  referred  to,  when  her  family  is  now  first  mentioned — 
"and  when  she  was  baptized,  and  her  family" — uikos. 
And  when  it  is  said  that  Crispus  and  his  family,  Cornelius 
and  his  family,  the  Philippian  jailer  and  his  family,  and 
Lydia  and  her  family,  were  all  baptized,  no  exception  is 
mentioned;  and  when,  according  to  the  popular  use  of  the 
term,  oikos  is  added,  with  special  reference  to  children,  the 
conclusion  is  so  strengthened  as  to  render  it  morally  certain 
that  children  were  included  in  the  sacred  rite. 

7.  But  further:  we  have  but  few  instances  of  the  baptism 
of  families  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures.  In  the  church  at 
Philippi,  we  have  but  two  instances  mentioned,  that  of 
Lydia,  and  that  of  the  jailer.  In  the  church  at  Corinth, 
but  two,  that  of  Crispus,  and  that  of  Stephanus:  and  yet 
besides,  "  many  of  the  Corinthians  believed,  and  were  bap- 
tized"— and  the  inference  is,  that  there  were  many  families 
among  these  believers.  On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  three 
thousand  believed,  and  were  baptized:  is  it  credible  that 
the  parents  did  not  take  \h.Qvc  families  with  them,  especially 
when  their  "children"  were  expressly  referred  to  by  Peter 
as  embraced  in  the  "promise?" 

I  quote  the  following  remark  from  the  author  to  whom  I 
am  indebted  for  the  argument  contained  in  this  chapter. 
"We  have  this  evidence  on  this  subject — -four  Christian 
families  recorded  as  baptized — that  of  Cornelius,  of  Lydia, 
of  the  jailer,  and  of  Stephanus."  Including  the  four  fami- 
lies of  Crispus,  Onesiphorus,  Aristobulus,  and  Narcissus — 
he  continues :  "  Have  we  eight  instances  of  the  administra- 
tion of  the  Lord's  supper?  Not  half  the  number.  Have 
we  eight  instances  of  the  change  of  the  Christian  Sabbath 
from  the  Jewish?     Not  perhaps  one-fourth  of  the  number. 


OIKOS — OIKIA.  295 


Yet  those  services  are  vindicated  by  the  practice  of  the 
apostles  as  recorded  in  the  New  Testament.  How  then  can 
we  deny  their  practice  on  the  subject  of  infant  baptism, 
when  it  is  established  by  a  series  of  more  numerous  instances 
than  can  possibly  be  found  in  support  of  any  doctrine,  prin- 
ciple, or  practice  derived  from  the  example  of  the  apostles  ? 
Is  there  any  other  case  besides  that  of  baptism,  on  which  we 
would  take  families  at  hazard,  and  deny  the  existence  of 
young  children  in  them?  Take  eight  families  at  a  venture 
in  a  street,  or  eight  pews  containing  families  in  a  place  of 
worship,  and  they  will  afford  more  than  one  young  child. 
Take  eight  families  on  a  fair  average :  suppose  half  to  con 
sist  of  four  children,  and  half  of  eight  children  :  the  average 
is  six:  calculate  the  chances,  that  in  forty-eight  children, 
not  one  should  be  an  infant:  it  is  hundreds  of  thousands  to 
one.  But  there  is  no  occasion  that  absolute  infancy  should 
be  the  object:  suppose  children  of  two  or  three  years  old; 
the  chances  would  be  millions  to  one,  that  none  such  were 
found  among  forty-eight  children,  composing  six  families. 
Or  supposing  baptism  were  completely  out  of  sight' — how 
many  young  children  would  be  found,  on  the  average,  in 
eight  families,  each  containing  six  children?  What  pro- 
portion do  these  eight  families,  identified  and  named  in  the 
New  Testament,  bear  to  those  of  Christians  also  identified 
and  named?  The  number  of  names  of  persons  converted 
after  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
is  twenty-eight.  Four  baptized  families  give  the  proportion 
of  one  in  seven.  The  number  of  names  of  similar  converts 
in  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament  is  f fly -five.  How 
many  converts  may  be  fairly  inferred  from  the  history  oY 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles?  ten  thousand.  This  gives  one 
thousand  baptized  FAMILIES.  How  many  from  the 
whole  of  the  New  Testament? — one  hundred  thousand? — this 

gives    TEN     THOUSAND     BAPTIZED     FAMILIES.       How    many 


296  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


must  be  allowed  during  the  first  century,  and  down  to  the 
days  of  Origen?  one  million? — it  gives  ONE  hundred 
thousand  baptized  families:  ten  millions?  the  pro- 
portion is  one  million  baptized  families.  This  calcu- 
lation, or  one  to  the  same  effect,  can  neither  be  evaded  or 
confuted." 26 

We  are  surprised  when  Baptist  authors  affirm  that  but 
three  instances  of  what  they  call  household  baptism  occurred 
in  the  days  of  the  apostles.  Four  families  are  expressly 
mentioned  as  having  been  baptized,  and  four  by  inference, 
while  "many"  others  are  likewise  implied.  We  will  con- 
sider a  moment  the  methods  by  which  the  Baptists  attempt 
to  disprove  that  there  were  children  in  the  families  of  Lydia, 
Stephanus,  and  the  jailer. 

They  assert  that  all  the  jailer's  family  must  have  been 
adults  because  they  " rejoiced  in  God."  Yes,  just  as  the 
"babes  and  sucklings"  did  in  the  temple,  when  they 
cried,  "  Hosanna  to  the  Son  of  David."  But,  continues 
the  objection,  "the  apostles  spake  the  word  of  the  Lord  unto 
him,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house,"  and  it  is  concluded, 
that  little  children  were  too  young  to  comprehend  the  word 
of  the  Lord.  But  this  phrase,  "all  in  his  house,"  may  re- 
fer to  others  who  had  been  aroused  by  the  earthquake,  and 
the  alarm  of  the  jailer,  and  had  assembled  with  him  in  his 
own  apartment,  where  they  were  addressed  by  the  apostles, 
as  any  minister  of  the  gospel  would  do  now  under  such  ex- 
citing circumstances.  Besides,  the  Greek  term  is  oikia, 
household,  which  includes  the  jailer's  servants,  who  were  old 
enough  to  understand  the  word  spoken  by  the  apostles.  But 
when  his  baptism  is  mentioned,  all  his  oikos,  family,  (ver. 
31,)  are  straightway  included. 

But  again,  it  is  objected,  "all  the  members  of  the  jailer's 

26  Apostolic  Baptism,  pp.  55-57. 


OTKOS — OIKIA.  29' 


house  believed,  because  it  is  said,  he  "rejoiced,  believing  in 
God  with  all  his  house."  But  this  is  refuted  at  once  by 
reference  to  the  original  word — -t-'.artuy.ibq,  pepisteukos — ■ 
which  is  in  the  singular  number,  and  refers  alone  to  the 
jailer.  Xow  I  ask,  is  there  any  proof  derived  from  a  candid 
consideration  of  the  jailer's  case,  to  justify  the  unscrupulous 
and  uncompromising  opposition  of  the  Baptists  to  infant 
baptism.  There  is  not  one  particle  of  proof  found  in  this 
instance  against  infant  baptism — not  even  the  remotest  in- 
ference, much  less  explicit  prohibition.  And  shall  the  rights 
of  infants,  that  had  been  acknowledged  under  the  same  cove- 
nant of  grace  from  the  beginning,  be  invalidated  and  abso- 
lutely set  aside  by  a  mere  surmise,  which  has  finally  assumed 
the  force  of  a  dogma,  totally  destitute  of  even  fair  inference 
to  support  it  ?  The  name  and  acts  of  the  head  of  the  family 
only  are  mentioned,  and  the  baptism  of  his  family  follows 
incidentally,  as  a  matter  depending  upon  the  head  of  the 
family.  The  Baptists  assert  that  the  family  of  Lydia  were 
adults,  because  it  is  said,  the  apostles  "  went  out  of  prison, 
and  entered  into  the  house  of  Lydia :  and  when  they  had 
seen  the  brethren,  they  comforted  them."  ^  The  "  brethren" 
are  supposed  to  be  the  sons  of  Lydia.  But,  in  the  first 
place,  it  is  wholly  gratuitous  to  assume  that  the  family  of 
Lydia  comprised  sons:  not  one  word  is  said  whether  the 
family  of  Lydia  was  composed  of  sons  or  daughters.  And 
in  the  second  place,  these  "  brethren,"  whom  Paul  and  Silas 
"comforted,"  were  the  "Christians  of  Philippi,"  and  not 
Lydia' s  family,  as  the  Scripture  history  most  clearly  demon- 
strates. The  whole  case  is  &  public  transaction.  Paul  and 
Silas  expel  a  Pythonic  spirit  from  a  certain  damsel;  her 
"  masters"  prevail  upon  the  "  magistrates"  to  imprison  Paul 
and  Silas.     In  the  mean  while,  at  midnight,  the  jailer  is 

a  Acts  xvL  40. 


298  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


converted,  and  the  next  day  the  apostles  are  publicty  released 
from  prison — and  now  what  follows?  Why,  the  apostles 
go  straightway  to  the  house  of  Lydia,  where  the  Christians 
of  Philippi  had  assembled,  under  the  exciting  circumstances, 
whom  the  apostles  "comfort,"  and  then  they  "depart." 
No,  say  others,  those  "  brethren  were  her  servants,  employed 
in  preparing  the  purple  dye  which  she  sold;  and  her  house 
contained  only  brethren,  probably  nienservants,  whom  Paul 
comforted."  In  the  first  place,  the  term  used  is  oikos, 
family,  and  not  oikia,  household,  which  terms  are  never 
used  interchangeably  by  the  sacred  writers,  and  therefore, 
the  servants  are  not  included  or  referred  to  in  the  term 
family.  In  the  second  place,  from  the  whole  narrative  we 
learn,  that  Timothy  and  Luke  were  with  Paul  and  Silas  at 
the  house  of  Lydia  when  they  were  taken  by  the  "magis- 
trates," and  imprisoned.28  Paul  would  have  Timothy  "  to 
go  forth  with  him,"  so  here  Timothy  is  with  Paul  and  Silas 
at  the  house  of  Lydia:  "And  it  came  to  pass  as  we  went 
to  prayer,"  (ver.  16,) — who?  The  brethren  above,  and 
Luke — the  writer  of  Lydia' s  conversion  and  baptism  and  the 
circumstances  following.  These  were  among  the  "brethren," 
and  probably  were  included  among  those  whom  Paul  and 
Silas  found  and  "comforted,"  on  their  release  from  prison. 
Thirdly,  it  is  not  stated  that  one  of  Lydia' s  servants  was 
baptized.29     Indeed,  not  a  passage  of  Scripture,  in  my  judg- 

28  Acts  xvi.  3. 

23  "It  is  however  conjectured,  first,  that  she  had  come  on  a  trading 
voyage,  from  Thyatira  to  Philippi,  to  sell  purple;  as  if  a  woman  of 
Thyatira  might  not  he  settled  in  business  at  Philippi  as  a  seller  of  this 
article.  Then,  as  if  to  mark  more  strikingly  the  hopelessness  of  the 
attempt  to  torture  this  passage  to  favor  an  opinion,  "her  house"  is  made 
to  consist  of  journeymen  dyers,  "employed  in  preparing  the  purple  she 
sold;"  which,  however,  is  a  notion  at  variance  with  the  former;  for  if 
she  was  on  a  mere  trading  voyage,  she  most  probably  brought  her  goods 
ready  dyed,  and  would  have  no  need  of  a  dying  establishment.     To 


OIKOS OIKIA.  299 


ment  at  least,  can  be  produced,  in  which  OIKIA,  household, 
is  connected  with  baptism.  The  Syriac,  the  very  best  of  all 
versions,  and  which  was  made  in  the  first  century,  reads, 
"xlnd  when  she  (Lydia)  was  baptized  with  her  chil- 
dren," ke.  The  Coptic  version  has  the  same  reading.  Of 
the  Syriac  version,  Dr.  A.  Clarke  observes,  it  "is  very 
valuable  and  of  great  authority."  Of  the  Coptic  version 
he  says,  "it  is  supposed  to  have  been  made  in  the  fifth 
century." 

To  close  this  chapter : — At  least  FOUR  hundred  instances 
might  be  adduced  from  sacred  and  profane  v:r  iters,  in  which 
OIKOS,  family,  includes  children  of  ALT,  AGES.  The  editor 
of  Calmet  adduces  at  least  fifty  examples  in  proof  that 
or/.oc,  house — when  applied  to  persons,  denotes  a  family  of 
children,  including  children  of  ALL  AGES,  and  says,  that 
three  hundred  instances  have  been  examined,  and  prove  the 
same  thing  in  a  most  satisfactory  manner.  Ed.  of  Cal.  p.  155. 
The  Jews  were  accustomed  to  receive  the  families  of  prose- 
lytes by  baptism  into  the  Jewish  church,  and  hence  would 
expect  to  see  their  children  admitted  by  baptism  into  the 
Christian  church,  upon  the  abolition  of  circumcision.  Gen- 
tile families  entered  the  Jewish  church  by  circumcision, 
sacrifice,  and  baptism;  and  therefore  Gentile  families,  on 
the  abolition  of  circumcision  and  sacrifice,  would  expect  to 
take  their  children  with  them  into  the  Christian  church  by 
baptism.  And  the  nice  and  invariable  distinction  preserved 
by  the  apostles  between  the  meaning  of  oikos,  fa  m  ily,  and 
oikia,  household,  confirms  the  conclusions  of  this  chapter. 


complete  the  whole,  these  journeyman  dyers,  although  not  a  word  is  said 
about  their  conversion,  nor  even  of  their  existence,  in  the  whole  story, 
are  raised  into  the  "  brethren  (a  term  which  manifestly  denotes  the 
members  of  the  Philippian  church)  whom  Paul  and  Silas  are  said  to 
have  seen  and  comforted  in  the  house  of  Lydia,  before  their  departure." 
Watson's  Theo.  Inst,  vol.  i.  641,  642. 


300  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

SILENCE   OF    SCRIPTURE,  ETC. 

Even  granting  that  infant  baptism  is  not  a  subject  of 
positive  institution — which  we  do  not — then  there  are  evi- 
dences as  strong  as  a  positive  enactment  in  its  favor.  For 
upon  the  laws  of  mind,  a  conviction  of  the  truth  from  col- 
lateral, circumstantial  evidence,  may  be  equivalent  to  a 
demonstration  from  positive  evidence.  But,  it  is  to  be  ob- 
served, that  no  array  or  amount  of  circumstances  in  them- 
selves false,  or  even  plausible,  can  sustain  that  which  does 
not  exist  or  support  error  as  truth.  And  when,  in  order  to 
establish  a  position,  as  in  the  case  of  infant  baptism,  both 
positive  and  circumstantial  evidence  is  produced,  conviction 
of  its  truth  is  satisfactory  in  the  highest  degree.  Having 
presented  the  first  department  of  evidence,  the  positive  and 
direct,  we  now  invite  attention  to  the  circumstantial  proofs 
in  favor  of  infant  baptism. 

1.  The  silence  of  the  Scriptures. 

As  the  church  and  covenant  remain  the  same  under  all 
dispensations,  infants  are  entitled  to  church  membership 
under  all  dispensations — unless  some  positive  repeal,  or  modi- 
fying innovation  respecting  them,  be  expressly  declared  by 
God. 

In  the  Old  Testament,  the  system  of  Christianity  was  in- 
stituted, and  in  the  New  Testament,  it  is  established:  insti- 
tuted in  view  of  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  established  by 
his  death.  Originally,  a  positive  enactment  entitled  infants 
to  a  participation  in  the  provisions  of  the  covenant,  and 


THE    SILENCE    OF    SCRIPTURE.  301 


membership  in  the  church,  and  this  enactment  secured  these 
privileges  in  all  previous  dispensations :  hence  some  divine 
repeal  of  old  privileges  and  rights  must  be  made  by  God, 
before  they  can  be  excluded  from  membership  in  the  church 
under  the  Christian  dispensation. 

The  introduction  of  infants  by  God  himself  into  the 
church  is  undoubted:  the  identity  of  the  covenant  of  mercy, 
under  all  dispensations,  is  also  undoubted:  the  consequent 
identity  of  the  church  under  every  dispensation,  is  likewise 
undoubted:  the  admission  of  infants  into  the  church  of  God 
for  two  thousand  years,  is  also  undoubted:  now  point  me  to 
the  time,  the  manner,  and  the  declaration,  when  the  cove- 
nant was  changed,  when  the  church  was  altered,  and  when 
children  were  excluded,  and  I  must  surrender  their  right  to 
church  membership,  under  the  Christian  dispensation.  Can 
it  be  done  ?  It  cannot :  and  as  it  cannot  be  done,  the  sup- 
posed silence  of  the  New  Testament  is  confirmatory  of  the 
rights  of  infants  to  baptism. 

Any  right  takes  date  from  the  most  recent  enactment. 
Grant — which  we  do  not— that  none  has  been  explicitly 
made  respecting  children  since  the  original  organization  of 
the  church  under  the  Old  Testament;  even  then  the  original 
enactment  respecting  the  right  of  children  to  church  mem- 
bership remains  in  full  force  under  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion, and  must  continue  so  till  repealed  by  the  authority  of 
God.  This  is  the  only  way  to  arrive  at  the  mind  of  God, 
respecting  any  thing  on  which  he  has  spoken  with  legislative 
authority.  And  yet  it  is  argued,  that  the  silence  of  the 
New  Testament  on  this  subject  is  a  sufficient  repeal.  That 
is,  that  God's  silence  repeals  what  he  has  spoken — what  he 
has  explicitly  and  expressly  enacted,  and  never  explicitly 
and  expressly  repealed.  On  what  principle  can  God's  si- 
lence be  so  interpreted,  when  his  plain  words  are  sometimes 
so  hard  to  be  properly  understood  ?     Nothing  is  clearer  in 

26 


302  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


the  range  of  reason,  than  that  the  silence  of  God,  on  any 
subject  on  which  he  has  spoken,  and  expressly  commanded, 
implies  still,  with  the  force  of  positive  repetition,  the  con- 
tinuation of  what  has  been  positively  instituted  and  com- 
manded. And  therefore,  the  obligation  to  acknowledge  the 
right  of  children  to  church  membership  under  the  Christian 
dispensation  is  as  strong,  and  sacredly  binding,  as  when 
God  originally  instituted  and  commanded  it  under  the  old 
dispensations,  or  as  it  would  be,  had  he  originally  done  so 
in  the  days  of  Christ.  No  man  can  alter  or  repeal  what 
God  has  not  seen  proper  to  change;  and  hence  the  silence 
of  the  New  Testament  on  this  subject  would  be  an  impressive 
and  divine  confirmation  of  the  rights  of  infants  to  church 
membership,  and  consequent  authority  for  the  administra- 
tion of  infant  baptism.  In  other  words :  an  institution  once 
made  by  God  must  be  considered  in  full  force  till  repealed 
by  him :  such  was  the  right  of  infants  to  church  member- 
ship, under  all  former  dispensations :  this  right  must  be  re- 
pealed by  the  authority  that  originated  it,  before  infants  can 
be  excluded  from  church  membership,  under  any  subsequent 
dispensation:  this  right  has  not  been  repealed  by  God: 
therefore  it  must  remain  in  as  full  force  as  when  originally 
instituted.  The  last  law  must  prevail  till  repealed ;  and  in 
the  case  of  infants,  athe  promise,"  or  covenant  of  grace, 
founded  upon  the  vicarious  death  of  Christ,  is  the  law  by 
which  infants  are  entitled  to  baptism,  the  seal  of  the  cove- 
nant. The  Adamic  law  of  works  was  in  force  till  set  aside 
by  the  law  of  grace.  To  repeal  the  law  of  grace  is  to  de- 
stroy the  hopes  of  the  world.  And  thus,  upon  the  hypothe- 
sis of  the  Baptists,  the  silence  of  the  Scriptures  implies  the 
positive  and  obligator?/  continuation  of  the  rights  of  infants 
to  church  membership,  and  consequently  to  baptism. 

The  whole  Bible,  embracing  both  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testaments,  comprehends  the  will  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus, 


THE    SILENCE    OF    SCRIPTURE.  303 


and  contains  an  account  of  the  final  and  complete  constitu- 
tion of  his  church.  The  Old  Testament  explicitly  mentions 
children  as  designated  by  God  himself  as  members  of  his 
church;  and  the  New  Testament  contains  no  repeal  of  this 
right.  Therefore  children  cannot  be  excluded  from  baptism, 
which  is  the  initiating  ordinance  of  the  Christian  church, 
without  repealing  the  Old  Testament,  and  thus  mutilating 
the  original  constitution  of  the  church  of  God,  and  violating 
his  will  revealed  in  the  beginning.  Such  is  the  bold  mea- 
sure of  the  Baptists — assault  is  made  in  fact  by  them  upon 
the  completeness  and  perfection  of  the  Bible,  and  the  unity 
of  the  church  in  all  ages. 

It  is  replied  by  Mr.  Jewett,1  "Can  silence  establish  a 
positive  institution  ?  or  a  blank  give  us  specific  and  definite 
instructions?"  We  answer,  yes;  if  the  silence  of  Scripture 
be  on  a  subject  previously  and  definitely  adjusted:  silence 
"establishes"  that  subject.  But  we  inquire  with  more  pro- 
priety, "  Can  silence  repeal  a  positive  institution,  or  a  blank 
reverse  specific  and  definite  instructions"  on  any  subject 
already  explained,  enjoined,  and  confirmed  upon  principles 
complete  and  immutable — principles  always  of  the  same  im- 
port, and  recognising  the  same  rights — principles  which,  in 
the  nature  of  things,  compose  the  foundation  of  the  church 
of  God?  If  not,  then  the  silence  of  the  Scriptures — admit- 
ting that  they  are  silent,  which  we  do  not — "establishes" 
all  the  ancient  religious  privileges  of  children,  connected 
with  the  original  divine  constitution  of  the  church,  and 
perpetuated  through  all  succeeding  ages  of  time.  The 
silence  of  Scripture  is  not  only  to  be  ascribed  to  the  con- 
tinued force  of  the  unrepealed  and  unaltered  constitution, 
but  to  the  commonness  of  the  thing,  as  in  the  history  of  the 
Old  Testament  church.     According  to  Dr.  "Wall,  "there  is 


Jewett  on  Baptism,  3d  ed.  p. 


9 1 . 


304  INFANT   BAPTISM. 


sometimes  five  hundred  years  together  without  the  mention 
of  any  child  circumcised/'  which  cannot  be  rationally  con- 
sidered as  proof  that  none  were  circumcised  during  that  time. 
2.  The  silence  of  the  church  supports  the  title  of  infants 
to  baptism.  A  change  which  excluded  children  from  the 
privileges  of  the  church,  would  have  caused  a  violent  and 
universal  complaint  among  Jewish  parents  and  the  friends 
of  the  Jewish  religion.  Suppose  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States,  which  embraces  every  interest  of  national 
liberty,  should  be  so  modified,  in  any  of  its  principles  or 
doctrines,  as  to  exclude  or  even  omit  the  rights  of  children, 
what  would  be  the  opposition  of  parents  in  the  land,  and 
the  triumph  of  enemies  throughout  the  world?  A  remon- 
strance would  go  up  like  thunder  to  Congress  from  the 
whole  length  and  breadth  of  the  land,  and  the  condemnation 
of  the  whole  civilized  world  would  rest  upon  us.  A  civil 
and  destructive  war  doubtless  would  ensue.  To  say  the 
least,  it  is  inconceivable  how  such  an  innovation  could  be 
permitted  in  silence.  In  like  manner,  suppose  the  Jews,  on 
the  manifestation  of  Christ,  with  all  the  convincing  and 
satisfactory  proofs  of  his  Messiahship  before  them,  had  not 
rejected  him,  but  received  him  as  their  promised  Deliverer, 
as  some  of  them  did,  with  what  feelings  think  you,  would 
they  have  received  baptism,  and  entered  the  Christian 
church,  without  their  children  f  With  a  mournful  conscious- 
ness of  the  superiority  of  the  Jewish  church  over  the  Chris- 
tian in  this  respect,  doubtless  they  would  have  so  expressed 
their  paternal  regrets  as  to  make  their  hostility  to  the  inno- 
vation a  matter  of  history,  to  be  transmitted  to  succeeding 
times  for  the  information  of  the  church.  And  as  the  Jews 
rejected  Christianity,  had  infants  been  excluded  from  the 
Christian  church,  they  would  have  mentioned  this  repeal  act 
as  a  strong  apology  for  their  rejection  of  Christianity  and 
preference  for  their  ancient  dispensation  of  the  covenant. 


THE    SILENCE    OF    THE    CHURCH.  305 


3.  The  silence  of  the  enemies  of  the  church  is  an  additional 
proof  that  the  right  of  infants  to  church  membership  was 
aever  repealed.  Had  it  been  repealed,  the  enemies  of  the 
new  religion  would  have  urged  the  exclusion  of  infants  as 
a  proof  of  the  inferiority  of  the  Christian  church  to  the  Jew- 
ish. Especially  would  Josephus,  the  most  celebrated  his- 
torian of  the  Jews,  have  noticed  this  neglect  or  omission  of 
the  rights  of  children,  and  some  pages  of  his  works  would 
have  been  crowded  with  arguments  founded  upon  this  ground, 
to  prove  the  superiority  of  the  Jewish  church,  and  the  im- 
perfection of  the  Christian  religion.  Had  such  a  testimony 
been  left  by  Josephus,  be  assured,  the  opposers  of  infant 
baptism  would  long  since  have  republished  it  a  thousand 
times  to  the  world.  Why  this  universal  and  profound 
silence  of  Jewish  historians  and  writers,  of  the  whole  infidel 
world,  and  of  all  the  enemies  of  the  Christian  church? 
"Why  the  silence  of  Celsus,  Julian,  Porphyry,  and  others 
among  the  avowed  and  uncompromising  enemies  of  Chris- 
tianity in  its  infancy  ?  The  supposed  silence  of  the  Supreme 
Legislator,  the  silence  of  his  church,  and  the  silence  of  the 
enemies  of  Christianity,  all  go  to  prove,  in  the  most  forcible 
manner,  that  the  original  institution  of  the  right  of  children 
to  church  membership  has  never  been  repealed,  and  there- 
fore their  right  to  initiation  into  the  church,  under  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation,  should  be  formally  recognised  by  baptism, 
the  initiating  sacrament  of  the  Christian  dispensation.  In 
view  of  the  original  institution — to  go  no  further  for  proof — 
we  see  no  necessity  for  specific  texts  and  positive  enactments 
to  perpetuate  the  religious  privileges  of  infants  under  the 
evangelical  dispensation.  All  we  might  expect  to  find  in 
the  New  Testament,  respecting  such  privileges,  is  a  recog- 
nition of  them,  expressed  or  implied,  direct  or  incidental, 
positive  or  inferential;  and  this  has  already  been  considered. 

26* 


306  INFANT   BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

COLLATERAL   PROOFS    OF   INFANT    BAPTISM    CONTINUED. 

1.  If  infants  were  not  baptized  in  the  days  of  the  apos- 
tles, npon  the  opening  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  what 
was  done  with  the  children  of  Christians?  Were  they 
circumcised?  By  no  means — circumcision  was  abolished 
by  the  death  of  Christ.  Were  they  baptized  ?  You  say  not. 
Then  they  were  judged  unworthy  of  the  religious  privileges 
of  Loth  dispensations,  and  like  the  surrounding  heathen,  they 
were  excluded  from  formal  association  with  the  church  under 
both  dispensations.  And  thus  the  children  were  subjected 
to  a  worse  condition  than  if  the  parents  had  never  been 
Christians,  or  the  Christian  dispensation  had  never  been 
introduced. 

2.  It  is  worthy  of  observation,  that  not  a  single  case  is 
mentioned  in  Scripture,  in  which  the  descendants  of  Chris- 
tian parents  were  baptized  in  adult  years.  The  Baptists 
take  great  advantage  of  those  who  pay  but  little  attention 
to  the  circumstances  of  the  commencement  of  Christianity, 
by  stating  the  examples  of  adult  baptism  mentioned  in 
Scripture.  All  these  examples  were  of  nations  newly  con- 
verted to  Christianity,  and  consequently  they  must  have 
preceded  the  baptism  of  infants,  as  in  the  case  of  Lydia  and 
the  jailer:  but  this  fact  the  Baptists  omit  altogether,  as  well 
as  that  the  familu  s  of  these  very  persons  were  baptized  also. 
But  no  instance  is  mentioned  in  Scripture  of  the  baptism  of 
the  descendants  of  Christians  in  adult  age.  Some  thirty 
years  intervened  between  the  ascension  of  Christ,  and  the 


COLLATERAL    PROOFS.  307 


arrival  of  Paul  at  Rome,  and  more  than  sixty  years  elapsed 
after  the  introduction  of  Christianity  before  the  history  of 
the  New  Testament  closed.  During  these  periods,  we  hear 
of  not  one  descendant  of  Christian  families  baptized  by  the 
apostles,  which  is  inferential  testimony  that  they  were  bap- 
tized in  infancy.  For  of  all  instances  of  baptism,  it  does 
seem  that  the  baptism  of  adult  believers,  descended  from 
Christian  parentage,  should  be  mentioned,  especially  if  bap- 
tism be  indispensable  as  to  a  peculiar  mode,  or  positively 
instituted  as  a  condition  of  salvation,  or  as  absolutely  invalid 
in  infancy.  During  these  periods,  two  or  three  generations 
arrived  at  maturity,  and  yet  of  the  thousands  of  children 
born  of  believing  parents,  we  have  not  on  record  an  account 
of  a  single  case  baptized  in  adult  age.  It  may  be  replied, 
and  so  we  have  no  account  of  a  single  case  of  the  baptism 
of  children  of  believing  parents.  The  explanation  of  this  is 
easy.  The  principal  object  of  the  New  Testament  history 
in  referring  to  baptism  in  any  specific  case,  is  to  narrate  the 
progress  of  the  gospel  among  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  not  to 
specify  the  baptism  of  children  whose  parents  were  already 
in  the  church.  Accordingly,  all  the  cases  of  baptism  re- 
corded as  above,  are  those  of  converts  to  Christianity.  In 
the  case  of  parents  already  in  the  apostolic  church,  the  bap- 
tism of  their  children  followed  as  a  matter  so  well  known, 
that  it  did  not  require  express  record,  and  hence  we  find  no 
account  of  any  such  case  registered  at  the  time.  Thus,  it 
may  be  inferred,  that  the  descendants  of  believing  parents 
were  all  baptized  in  infancy,  and  none  remained  to  be  bap- 
tized in  manhood,  and  so  no  record  of  the  kind  is  to  be 
found.  And  therefore,  from  this  silence  of  Scripture  con- 
cerning the  baptism  of  adult  believers,  descended  from  Chris- 
tian parents,  we  argue  these  several  things : — 

First.  That  the  mode  of  baptism  is  non-essential. 

Secondly.  That  the  conditionality  of  baptism  is  unscriptura. 


308  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


Thirdly.  That  infant  baptism  is  valid;  and, 

Fourthly.  That,  as  in  the  case  of  these  adult  believers 
descended  from  Christian  parents,  baptism  was  not  repeated, 
so  in  the  present  day,  it  ought  not  to  be  repeated  in  any 
case  properly  baptized  in  infancy.  The  example  of  ancient 
believers  ought  to  be  sufficient  to  reconcile  any,  in  all  subse- 
quent ages,  to  baptism  administered  in  infancy,  and  fully 
satisfy  the  most  scrupulous  with  regard  to  it. 

3.  The  history  of  the  Christian  church,  from  the  apostolic 
age,  irresistibly  sustains  the  divine  authority  and  validity 
of  infant  baptism. 

We  are  to  regard  the  early  Fathers  as  credible  wit- 
nesses. They  had  their  senses,  their  memories,  oral  tra- 
ditions, and  written  documents,  and  hence  they  were  qualified 
to  bear  ample  testimony  concerning  the  facts  of  the  pre- 
ceding age,  and  what  occurred  before  their  eyes.  They  bear 
testimony  to  the  canonical  authority  of  the  different  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  we  implictly  receive  them  as  the 
genuine  writings  of  the  apostles,  as  the  inspiration  of  God, 
and  commit  the  salvation  of  our  souls  to  their  light.  But 
these  Fathers  were  better  qualified  to  bear  testimony  to  the 
public  and  universal  practice  of  infant  baptism,  since  it  was 
a  subject  daily  presented  to  their  immediate  observation. 
We  are  not  in  search  of  their  opinions,  but  their  testimony 
to  the  fact  of  infant  baptism.  Tertullian  had  opinions  of 
infant  baptism  different  from  the  rest  of  the  Fathers,  it  is 
true,  but  he  bore  testimony,  nevertheless,  in  common  with 
the  rest  of  the  Fathers,  in  favor  of  the  fact  of  infant  bap- 
tism. And  observe,  whenever  they  mention  the  subject  of 
infant  baptism,  they  do  it,  not  to  discuss,  or  even  question 
its  validity  and  authority,  but  they  introduce  it  incidentally, 
to  sustain  and  illustrate  other  questions  at  issue  at  the  time 
— its  DIVINE  authority  is  always  taken  for  granted — and 


COLLATERAL    PROOFS.  309 


never  is  it  asserted  to  be  the  invention  of  man  or  the  insti- 
tution of  councils. 

First,  Justin  Martyr.  In  his  first  apology  to  the  Emperor 
Antoninus  Pius,  he  says,  "  Several  persons  among  us,  of  sixty 
and  seventy  years  old,  of  both  sexes,  who  were  made  disci- 
ples— zfia#rjr£u&rj<rav,  cmatheteuthesan — to  Christ,  in  or  from 
their  childhood,  do  continue  uncorrupted."  Justin  wrote 
but  ninety  years  after  St.  Matthew,  who,  as  is  supposed  by 
Jones,  "Wetstein,  Dr.  Owen,  and  Richard  Watson,  wrote  his 
Gospel  for  the  use  of  the  Hebrew  believers,  in  their  own 
tongue,  about  five  years  after  the  ascension  of  Christ,  that 
is,  A.  D.  41.  Consequently,  they  who  were  seventy  years  old 
in  the  time  of  Justin,  must  have  been  made  disciples  to 
Christ  in  their  childhood,  in  the  midst  of  the  apostles'  times, 
within  twenty-Jive  years  after  the  ascension  of  Christ,  twenty 
years  after  St.  Matthew  wrote,  in  the  very  year  in  which 
St.  Mark  wrote,  three  years  before  St.  Luke  wrote,  and  forty 
years  before  the  death  of  St.  John.  And  as  there  was  no 
other  way  of  making  disciples  to  Christ  from  infancy  but 
by  baptism,  these  persons  must  have  been  baptized  in  their 
infancy,  during  the  very  days  of  the  apostles,  and  probably 
by  the  apostles  themselves,  at  least  with  their  approval,  which 
is  the  same  thing.     This  testimony  is  conclusive. 

Secondly,  Iren^eus.  He  was  born  A.  D.  97,  three  years 
before  the  death  of  St.  John ;  was  a  disciple  of  Polycarp, 
who  was  a  disciple  of  St.  John;  lived  between  thirty  and  forty 
years  after  Justin  Martyr,  and  between  sixty  and  seventy 
years  after  the  apostles.  He  says :  "  The  church  learned 
from  the  apostles  to  baptize  children."  And  in  his 
book  against  heretics  he  writes :  "  He  (Jesus  Christ)  came 
to  save  all  persons  by  himself,  all  I  say,  who  are  regenerated 
by  him  unto  God,  infants  and  little  ones  and  children, 
and  young  men  and  old  men."  It  is  to  be  observed,  that 
this  writer  is  very  remarkable  for  the  common  use  of  the 


310  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


term  regeneration  for  baptism — what  else  could  he  mean  in 
the  case  of  " infants,  little  ones,  and  children?"  And  thus 
by  substituting  baptism  for  regeneration,  we  find  his  testi- 
mony as  strong  as  that  of  Justin  in  favor  of  the  apostolic 
authority  of  infant  baptism. 

Thirdly,  Tertullian.  He  was  born  about  forty-five 
years  after  the  apostles'  days,  and  wrote  on  the  subject  of 
baptism  late  in  the  second  century,  within  a  hundred  and 
fifty  years  after  the  churches  were  planted  by  the  apostles. 
He  had  what  might  be  called,  at  that  time,  singular  views 
of  baptism,  which  led  him  to  think  its  delay  "  more  useful," 
in  the  case  of  infants  and  certain  adults.  But  he  speaks  of 
the  baptism  of  children  as  the  common  practice,  and  never 
writes  one  word  against  its  lawfulness,  nor  even  expresses  a 
doubt  of  its  apostolic  origin.  Hear  him:  "Give  to  them 
who  ask  thee,  but  children  cannot  ask;  do  not  forbid  them 
to  come:  therefore  let  them  stay  till  they  can  come:  let 
them  come  when  they  are  grown  up — when  they  understand 
— when  they  are  instructed  whither  it  is  they  are  about  to 
come:  let  them  be  made  Christians  when  they  can  know 
Christ." 

In  the  first  place,  this  quotation  from  Tertullian  is  posi- 
tive proof  that  infant  baptism  existed  at  the  time  as  the 
practice  of  the  church,  or  why  should  Tertullian  have  written 
against  it  in  this  manner?  And  so  Tertullian  himself  is  a 
witness  to  the  fact  that  infant  baptism  existed  at  this  early 
age  of  the  church.  Secondly,  "Do  not  forbid  them  to 
come  :"  if  Tertullian  refers  to  the  language  of  Christ,  it 
does  not  imply  that  children  ought  not  to  be  "brought^  to 
Christ;  for  Christ  himself  rebuked  his  disciples,  who,  like 
Tertullian,  thought  they  were  too  young  to  receive  his  bless- 
ing, and  commanded  that,  though  they  could  not  ('come,> 
themselves,  they  should  be  "brought"  to  him.  If  Tertullian 
employ  this  passage  of  Scripture  against  infant  baptism,  or 


TERTULLIAN.  311 


as  in  any  way  referring  to  it,  then  the  question  is  settled  at 
once  by  Christ  against  Tertullian,  for  he  says,  "Suffer  little 
children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not," — and  he 
"took  them  up  in  his  arms,  and  blessed  them/'  though  they 
could  neither  "ask,"  nor  "come"  nor  "understand"  Christ. 
Thirdly,  I  repeat,  we  are  to  distinguish  between  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Fathers  to  facts,  and  their  opinions  respecting 
facts.  Their  testimony  we  are  bound  to  receive;  their 
opinions  we  can  reject  or  receive  according  as  we  have  good 
ground  to  believe  them  true  or  false.  Tertullian  maintained 
that  baptism  washed  away  all  previous  sin,  whether  actual 
or  original,  and  hence  the  longer  baptism  was  delayed,  the 
better  it  would  be,  in  his  opinion,  for  the  subject,  unless 
there  was  immediate  danger  of  death,  since  all  sins,  com- 
mitted after  baptism,  could  not  be  washed  away  by  it :  and 
thus  he  included  all  unmarried  persons  of  both  sexes,  virgins 
and  widows,  in  the  prohibition  with  infants,  except,  as  above, 
those  cases  in  danger  of  death.  Entertaining  such  views, 
no  wonder  he  should  consider  the  delay  of  baptism  in  the 
case  of  infants  desirable,  and  should  attempt  to  support  it 
from  the  Scriptures.1 

But  the  force  of  this  objection  to  infant  baptism  is  de- 
stroyed by  the  following  considerations: — On  the  same 
ground,  no  one  should  be  baptized  till  he  come  to  die.  Be- 
sides, the  objection  is  founded  upon  an  erroneous  view  of 
the  nature  and  design  of  baptism.  Baptism  is  not  the 
condition  of  forgiveness  of  sins,  "actual  and  original,"  but 


1  Such  was  the  influence  of  Tertullian,  that  we  need  not  be  surprised 
to  find,  for  more  than  a  century  after  his  age,  many  distinguished  con- 
verts, and  among  them  Constantine,  postponing  their  baptism  till  a  late 
period  in  life.  But  this  fact  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  erroneous  views 
entertained  of  baptism  by  all  such  persons,  and  not  to  any  difference  of 
opinion  that  existed  at  this  time  with  regard  to  the  apostolic  origin  and 
prevalence  of  infant  baptism. 


312  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


imposes  upon  the  subject  the  solemn  obligation  to  refrain 
from  sinning  through  all  future  life.  Fourthly,  if  the 
advice  of  Tertullian  to  delay  infant  baptism,  proves  that 
infants  were  not  baptized  in  his  age,  and  hence  should  not 
be  baptized  in  any  age,  then  his  advice  to  delay  the  baptism 
of  unmarried  persons  and  widows,  also  proves  that  such 
persons  were  not  baptized  in  his  age,  and  consequently 
should  not  be  baptized  in  any  age  of  the  church !  For  the 
same  reason,  in  all  ages,  baptism  ought  to  be  denied  to 
adults,  since  all  Christians  are  liable  to  temptation.  Fifthly, 
why  did  he  not  terminate  the  controversy  at  once,  by  boldly 
stating  and  proving  that  infant  baptism  was  a  novelty,  an 
invention  of  man,  unknown  to  and  unauthorized  by  the 
apostles?  This  would  have  been  conclusive.  He  might 
have  appealed  to  the  old  men  of  his  time,  whose  memories 
reached  within  twenty  or  thirty  years  of  the  apostolic  age, 
and  who  might  have  furnished  him  with  the  requisite  in- 
formation, had  it  been  introduced  within  the  time  of  their 
remembrance.  He  had  before  him,  also,  written  histories  of 
the  times,  to  which  he  might  have  referred  for  proof.  But 
he  makes  no  appeal,  not  even  the  remotest  allusion,  to  any 
testimony  on  the  subject.  Sixthly,  that  all  doubt  may  be 
removed  on  the  subject,  take  the  positive  testimony  of  Ori- 
gen,  contemporary  with  Tertullian,  who  proves  incontestably 
that  infant  baptism  was  the  established  usage  of  the 
church  in  the  days  of  Tertullian  himself,  and  that  it 

HAD    BEEN    HANDED   DOWN   FROM    THE  APOSTLES.       To   the 

testimony  of  Origen  we  shall  soon  direct  attention,  but  be- 
fore we  do,  let  the  reader  bear  in  mind  that  "these  two 
writers  lived  in  different  parts  of  the  world;  that  Tertullian 
wrote  the  earlier  of  the  two,  and  being  born  of  heathen 
parents,  was  converted  to  Christ  in  adult  age,  while  Origen 
enjoyed  the  privilege  of  descending  from  Christian  parents, 
and  of  being  taught  the  Christian  doctrine  from  childhood." 


ORIGEN.  313 


The  boldness  of  Tertullian  at  this  early  period  of  Chris- 
tianity, it  may  be  observed,  is  explicable  on  the  ground  that 
he  was  subjected,  to  a  great  extent,  to  the  "  bondage"  of 
the  ancient  law,  and  consequently  was  unqualified  to  advo- 
cate the  freeness  and  fulness  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  The 
opposition  of  Tertullian  rested  upon  a  principle2  altogether 
different  from  the  ground  of  opposition  urged  by  modern 
Baptists,  for  he  allowed  the  baptism  of  infants  whose  lives 
are  in  danger.  And  this  modified  opposition  proves  that 
infant  baptism  was  the  practice  of  the  church  at  the  time; 
for  why  does  he  wish  it  deferred,  unless  it  had  been  the 

PREVIOUS  PRACTICE  ? 

Fourthly,  Origen.  He  was  the  most  learned  of  the 
Fathers.  He  was  born  between  eighty  and  ninety  years 
after  St.  John's  death,  was  contemporary  with  Tertullian, 
was  baptized  in  infancy,  and  was  descended  from  Christian 
parents — his  father  was  a  Christian  martyr,  his  grandfather 
and  grandmother,  and  great-grandfather  also,  were  Christians; 
and  consequently,  he  could  not  be  ignorant  of  the  primitive 
rites  and  customs  of  the  apostolic  churches.  For  the  pur- 
pose of  acquiring  information  of  our  Lord  and  his  doctrine, 
and  the  constitution,  manners,  and  customs,  of  the  primitive 
churches,  he  visited  the  churches  planted  by  the  apostles  in 
Cappadocia,  in  Arabia,  in  Greece,  and  in  Rome;  while  the 
most  of  his  life  was  spent  in  Syria,  and  in  Palestine — the 
very  countries  in  which  the  first  churches  were  planted  by 
the  apostles:  consequently,  he  must  have  been  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  rites  and  customs  of  the  apostolic 
churches.  And .  the  conclusion  of  all  his  researches  is : 
"  The  church  received  from  THE  APOSTLES  the  injunction  or 
tradition  to  give  baptism  even  to  infants.     According 

2  This  error  of  Tertullian,  Calvin  calls  u  a  preposterous  caution ;"  and 
eays,  "it  is  frequently  censured  in  the  writings  of  the  ancient  bishops," 
Institutes,  b.  4,  c.  15,  sec.  3. 

27 


314  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


to  the  saying  of  our  Lord  concerning  infants — and  thou  wast 
an  infant  when  thou  wast  baptized — '  their  angels  do  always 
behold  the  face  of  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven/ "  This 
is  his  testimony  to  infant  baptism — and  that  its  credibility 
may  be  established,  consider  more  fully  his  own  genealogy, 
and  that  of  certain  "faithful  men"  to  whom  Timothy  gave 
charge,  at  forty  years  only.  As  Origen's  father  was  mar- 
tyred, he  is  to  be  estimated  at  twenty-five  years  only,  and 
thus  it  will  appear  that  the  testimony  of  Paul,  Timothy,  and 
Timothy's  "faithful  men,"  and  of  "others"  also  instructed 
by  them,  extends  to  the  year  180.  Now  Origen  was  born 
in  the  year  185.  Subtract  from  this,  twenty-five  years  for 
his  father;  forty  years  for  his  grandfather;  and  forty  years 
also  for  his  great-grandfather,  and  we  are  brought  to  the 
year  80 — a  period  within  twelve  years  of  the  death  of  Mark 
the  Evangelist,  which  occurred  at  Alexandria  "from  the 
wounds  his  enemies  inflicted  as  they  were  repeating  their 
torments  after  a  night  of  imprisonment/'  Mark  knew  per- 
fectly well  the  practices  of  the  apostles,  for  he  had  been 
"sent  by  Peter  to  advance  the  cause  of  Christ  in  Egypt," 
and  during  his  life,  he  would  select  his  "faithful  men"  to 
transmit  at  his  death  instructions  of  apostolic  authority. 
John  survived  precisely  twenty  years,  that  is,  he  died  A.  D. 
100.  Thus,  there  was  Timothy,  or  Titus,  or  some  of  their 
"faithful  men"  contemporaneous  with  the  Origen  family  for 
nearly  a  hundred  years.  Now  how  was  it  possible  that  the 
practice  of  the  primitive  church  at  this  early  age  could  be 
forgotten,  or  corrupted,  or  perverted,  or  abused,  or  counter- 
acted, or  compromitted  by  the  ingenuity  of  man-,  or  the 
stratagem  of  hell  ?  Is  it  at  all  credible,  that  rites  and  cere- 
monies absolutely  new,  and  diametrically  opposed  to  aposto- 
lic injunctions,  could  be  so  soon  superadded  to  apostolic 
practices  and  customs,  and  be  so  quietly  established  and  in- 
sensibly identified  with  them,  that  not  one  word  of  opposition 


ORIGEN.  315 


should  be  heard  from  any  quarter?  Where  was  Timothy, 
or  some  oue  of  his  "faithful  MEN?"  And  where  was 
Origen?  And  what  does  he  say  of  the  Christian  obser- 
vances in  his  own  family,  in  his  father's,  in  his  grandfather's, 
and  his  great-grandfather's,  as  derived  immediately  from 
Mark  the  Evangelist?     He  says,  "  The  church  received 'from 

THE    APOSTLES    THE     INJUNCTION    OR     TRADITION    TO    GIVE 

baptism  even  to  infants."  Xow  why  did  not  some  anti- 
paedobaptist — if  any  existed  at  the  time — speak  out,  and  say, 
Origen,  you  are  of  Christian  descent — you  have  travelled 
much  in  countries  where  the  primitive  churches  were  planted 
— and  you  know  that  infant  baptism  is  not  of  apostolic 
origin — you  know  you  were  baptized  in  adult  age — you  know 
you  were  baptized  by  immersion?  These  bold  addresses 
would  have  silenced  Origen  effectually,  had  not  infant  baptism 
been  of  apostolic  origin.  But  not  one  word  of  appeal  of  this 
kind — not  one :  on  the  contrary,  no  one,  not  even  Tertullian 
himself,  expresses  a  doubt  of  the  apostolic  origin  and  authority 
of  infant  baptism,  and  speaks  of  it  as  the  common  practice. 
Such  testimony,  without  opposition  from  Tertullian,  or  any 
one  else,  we  regard  as  sufficient  to  establish  firmly  and  satis- 
factorily our  belief  in  any  fact  of  history  supposed  to  have 
occurred  one  hundred  years  before. 3  Origen  not  only  attests 
to  the  validity,  but  the  obligation  of  infant  baptism :  "  The 
church  received  from  the  apostles  the  injunction  to  give  bap- 
tism to  infants." 

3  "Nor  can  this  testimony  of  Origen  be  regarded  a3  an  interpolation 
made  by  bis  translators.  If  there  were  found  in  these  translations  of 
Origen  but  one  or  two  places,  and  those  in  Rufinus  alone,  that  did  speak 
of  infant  baptism,  there  might  have  been  suspicions  of  their  being  inter- 
polations. But  when  there  are  so  many  of  them,  brought  in  on  several 
occasions,  in  translations  made  by  several  men,  who  xcere  of  several  par- 
ties, and  enemies  to  one  another,  (as  St.  Hierome  and  Rufinus  were,)  and 
upon  no  tentation,  (for  it  is  certain  that  in  their  time  there  was  no  dis- 
pute about  infant  baptism,)  that  they  should  be  all  without  any  reason 


316  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


Fifthly.  Cyprian.  He  was  contemporary  with  Origen,  and 
a  member  of  the  council  of  sixty-six  "bishops  held  at  Carthage 
150  years  from  the  age  of  the  apostles.  In  answer  to  a 
question  proposed  by  Fidus,  a  country  pastor,  whether  it 
would  not  be  better  to  delay  the  baptism  of  infants  till  the 
eighth  day  after  their  birth,  than  to  baptize  them  before 
that  time,  the  council  addressed  to  him  the  following  letter : 

"  Cyprian,  and  others  of  the  college  of  bishops  who  were 
present,  sixty-six  in  number,  to  Fidus  our  brother,  greeting : 

"We  read  your  letter,  most  dear  brother,  &c. 

"So  far  as  it  pertains  to  the  case  of  infants,  whom  you 
think  ought  not  to  be  baptized  within  the  second  or  third 
day  from  their  birth;  and  that  the  ancient  law  of  circum- 
cision should  be  observed,  so  that  none  should  be  baptized 
and  sanctified  before  the  eighth  day  after  birth :  it  seemed 
to  all  in  our  council  far  otherwise.  For  as  to  what 
you  proposed  to  be  done,  there  was  not  one  of  your  opinion. 
But  on  the  contrary,  it  was  our  unanimous  decision  that 
the  grace  and  mercy  of  God  should  not  be  denied  to  any  as 
soon  as  born."  4  This  ecclesiastical  decision  is  more  import- 
ant than  the  judgment  or  opinion  of  a  single  private  Father : 
the  decision  of  the  general  council  determines  the  common 
practice  of  the  whole  church.  The  question  before  the  coun- 
cil was  not  respecting  the  lawfulness  of  infant  baptism — that 
was  admitted — but  concerning  the  time  of  administering  it 
— and  the  time  is  determined  without  a  dissenting  voice. 

Sixthly.  Ambrose,  Augustine,  Chrysostom,  Jerome, 

forged,  is  absurd  to  think."  Wall,  vol.  i.  119,  120.  And  Wall  adds, 
"these  translators  lived  not  much  more  than  one  hundred  years  after 
Origen's  time;  and  the  Christians  then  must  know  whether  infants  had 
been  used  to  be  baptized  in  Origen's  time  or  not:  the  very  tradition  from 
father  to  son  must  have  carried  a  memory  of  it  for  so  short  a  time.  And 
then,  for  them  to  make  Origen  speak  of  a  thing  which  all  the  world  knew 
waB  not  in  use  in  his  time,  must  have  made  them  ridiculous." 
4  Cyprian,  Epist.,  66. 


AMBROSE,    AUGUSTINE,    ETC.  317 


Optatus,  Gregory  Nazianzen.  These  Fathers  and 
writers  wrote  in  the  fourth  century. 

Ambrose:  "  The  baptism  of  infants  had  been  the  practice 
of  the  apostles  and  of  the  church  till  his  time." 

Augustine:  He  mentions  the  baptism  of  infants  as  that 
which  "the  whole  church  practises."  "It  was  not  instituted 
by  any  council,  but  was  always  in  use."  He  adds:  "He 
does  not  remember  ever  to  have  heard  of  any,  whether  catho- 
lic or  heretic,  who  maintained  that  baptism  ought  to  be 
denied  to  infants — this  the  church  has  always  maintained."  3 

Chrysostom :  In  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth,  or  the  begin- 
ning of  the  fifth  century,  he  says:  "  The  catholic  church 
everywhere  declared  that  infants  should  be  baptized." 

Jerome:  Incidentally  referring  to  the  subject  of  infant 
baptism,  he  thus  bears  testimony:  "Unless  you  suppose 
the  children  of  Christians  if  they  do  not  receive  baptism  are 
themselves  accountable  for  the  sin,  and  the  wickedness  not 
imputed  to  those  who  would  not  give  it  to  them."  Here  he 
declares  that  infant  baptism  was  the  practice  of  the  church 
in  his  time,  and  that  it  is  the  sin  of  the  parents  to  neglect  it. 

Optatus:  He  was  bishop  of  Milevium,  and  also  refers  to 
infant  baptism  incidentally,  as  the  universal  practice  of  the 
church.  Referring  to  baptism,  he  exclaims,  "  Oh  what  a 
garment  is  this,  that  is  always  one  and  innumerable,  that 
decently  fits  ALL  AGES,  and  all  shapes!  It  is  neither  too  big 
for  infants,  nor  too  little  for  men,  and  without  any  altera- 
tion fits  women." 

Gregory  Nazianzen:  He  was  a  celebrated  theological  and 
polemical  writer  of  the  fourth    century — he  thus  writes: 

5  Augustine  had  300  years  to  look  back  to  apostolic  times,  and  had 
before  him  writings  and  records  which  are  now  lost  to  us :  but  a  small 
proportion  of  early  evidence  of  apostolic  practices  has  survived  the  ruins 
of  time,  and  remains  upon  the  pages  of  secular  and  ecclesiastical  history 
in  the  possession  of  the  church. 

27* 


118  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


" Have  you  an  infant?  Let  not  wickedness  have  the  ad- 
vantage of  him:  from  his  INFANCY  let  him  be  sanctified; 
from  the  cradle  let  him  be  consecrated  by  the  Spirit.  You 
fear  the  seal  on  account  of  the  weakness  of  nature:  how 
faint-hearted  a  mother,  and  how  little  faith!  Hannah, 
even  before  Samuel  was  born,  promised  him  to  God,  and 
consecrated  him  immediately  after  his  birth,  and  brought 
him  up  in  the  priestly  dress,  not  fearing  any  human  in- 
firmity, but  trusting  in  God."  And  again,  he  supposes  the 
following  question  proposed  to  him  respecting  infant  bap- 
tism, which  he  answers:  "  Wliat  say  you  as  concerning  those 
who  are  as  yet  INFANTS,  and  are  not  sensible  of  its  loss  or 
of  its  'grace,'  shall  we  baptize  them  too?  By  all  means, 
if  in  any  danger  make  it  requisite.  For  it  is  better  that 
they  be  sanctifed  [baptized]  without  their  own  sense  of  it, 
than  that  they  should  die  UNSEALED  and  UNINITIATED." 

Seventhly.  Pelagius.  While  Pelagius  is  not  to  be  regard- 
ed as  one  of  the  Fathers,  yet  his  testimony  in  favor  of  infant 
baptism  is  rendered  most  important  by  the  circumstances 
under  which  it  was  given.  He  was  a  contemporary  and  an- 
tagonist of  Augustine  in  the  field  of  polemic  theology.  The 
celebrated  controversy  on  original  sin  occurred  about  300  years 
after  the  apostolic  age,  between  Pelagius  and  Celestius  on 
the  one  side,  and  Augustine  and  the  whole  church  with  him 
on  the  other.  Pelagius  denied  the  doctrine  of  original  sin. 
The  argument  used  by  Augustine  was  the  prevailing  practice 
of  infant  baptism :  "  If  not  to  shadow  forth  the  inward  wash- 
ing to  which  the  infant  was  entitled,  what  was  its  design  ?'' 
This  greatly  embarrassed  Pelagius.  But  why  did  he  not 
set  aside  the  argument  of  Augustine  at  once,  by  showing 
that  infant  baptism  was  a  human  invention,  a  novelty? 
With  all  his  learning  and  subtlet}7,  he  was  able  to  do  this, 
had  it  been  possible.  But  no  effort  of  this  kind  is  made 
On  the  contrary,  he  adopts  other  measures  to  explain  and 


PELAGIUS    AND    CELESTIls.  ulO 


justify  the  practice  of  infant  baptism.  Such  as  "infants 
had  actual  sins  that  needed  forgiveness;"  or,  "  that  they  had 
pre-existed,  and  baptism  was  for  sins  done  in  a  former  state ;" 
or,  "  that  they  were  initiated  into  a  church  in  which  sins 
were  forgiven:"  all  of  which  were  easily  refuted.  And  so 
strong  was  the  temptation  to  deny  the  validity  of  infant  bap- 
tism, that  some  of  his  enemies  affirmed  that  he  denied  the 
right  of  infants  to  baptism ;  whereupon  Pelagius  exclaimed  : 
"Men  slander  me,  as  if  I  denied  the  sacrament  of  baptism 
to  in/ants.  I  NEVER  HEARD  OF  ANY  ONE,  EVEN  THE  MOST 
IMPIOUS  HERETIC,  who  asserted  that  infants  are  not  to  he 
baptized."  The  testimony  of  Pelagius  is  the  stronger,  when 
we  consider  that  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism  furnished 
an  unanswerable  argument  against  his  heretical  opinions.0 
Besides,  further  testimony  in  favor  of  infant  baptism,  may 
be  drawn  from  his  creed:  "We  hold  one  baptism,  which  we 
say  ought  to  be  administered  with  the  same  sacramental 
words  to  infants  as  it  is  to  all  elder  persons."  7 

Celestius,  associated  with  him  in  this  great  controversy, 
makes  also  the  following  confession:  "We  own  that  infants 
ought,  according  to  the  rule  of  the  universal  church,  and 
according  to  the  sentence  of  the  gospel,  to  be  baptized,'1 
&c.8     That  the  history  of  the  apostolic  times  might  be  trans- 


6  The  doctrine  of  Pelagius  was  pronounced  heretical;  and  thus,  by  the 
judgment  of  the  ancient  church,  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism  was 
justified  on  the  ground  of  original  sin. 

7  Wall,  vol.  i.  440. 

8  Respecting  these  men,  Wall  observes,  "They  lived  in  the  prime  of 
their  age  at  Rome,  a  place  to  which  all  the  people  of  the  world  had  then 
a  resort.  They  were  both  some  time  at  Carthage  in  Africa.  Then  the 
one  settled  at  Jerusalem,  and  the  other  travelled  through  all  the  noted 
Greek  and  Eastern  churches  in  Europe  and  Asia.  It  is  impossible  there 
should  have  been  any  churches  that  had  any  singular  practice  in  this 
matter,  but  they  must  have  heard  of  them.  So  that  one  may  fairly  con- 
clude, that  there  was  not  at  this  time,  nor  in  the  memory  of  the  men  of 


320  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


mitted  unimpaired  to  the  succeeding  ages  of  the  church,  it 
was  the  care  of  the  apostles  "to  commit  to  faithful  men, 
able  to  teach  others  also/' 9  this  solemn  and  important  charge. 
These  "faithful  men"  were  instructed  by  the  apostles  them- 
selves. The  Apostles  Jude  and  Thomas,  and  the  Evangelist 
Luke,  all  lived  beyond  the  year  70  A.  D.  Timothy  and 
Titus  a  few  years  longer.  John  died  A.  D.  100,  or  a  little 
after.  Polycarp,  the  friend  and  disciple  of  St.  John,  lived 
till  about  sixty-five  years  after  the  death  of  St.  John.  Ter- 
tullian  lived  twenty-two  years  before  Polycarp's  death;  Jus- 
tin Martyr  lived  and  died  before  Polycarp's  death;  and 
Ireneeus,  the  friend  and  disciple  of  Polycarp,  was  born  thirty 
years  after  Polycarp  was  born,  lived  thirty-one  years  after 
his  death,  and  about  ninety-six  after  the  death  of  St.  John. 
Origen  was  born  twelve  years  before  the  death  of  Irenaeus, 
and  lived  sixty-one  years  after  his  death,  and  nine  years 
after  the  council  at  Carthage  was  held.  Now  Origen  fre- 
quently appeals  to  the  writings  of  Irenasus  on  the  subject 
of  infant  baptism,  and  says,  "It  Was  handed  down  from 
the  apostles."  How  is  "it  possible  that  the  practice  of  in- 
fant baptism  at  this  age,  immediately  after  the  death  of  the 
apostles,  could  become  universal  in  the  church,  unless  it  was 
of  apostolic  origin  and  authority?  Where  were  the  " faith- 
ful men  V*     Who  were  the  innovators  ? 

To  continue  : — We  have  seen  the  same  testimony  in  favor 
of  infant  baptism,  transmitted  from  the  time  of  Origen  and 
Cyprian,  down  through  Ambrose,  Augustine,  Chrysostom, 
Jerome,  Optatus,  Gregory  Xazianzen,  to  the  controversy  be- 


this  time,  any  Christian  society  that  denied  baptism  to  infants."  And 
Wall  adds  on  the  same  page,  "This  cuts  off  at  once  all  the  pretences 
which  some  anti-pa?dobaptists  -would  raise  from  certain  probabilities, 
that  the  Novatians,  or  Donatists,  or  the  British  Church  of  those  times,  or 
any  other  whom  Pelagius  must  needs  know,  did  deny  it."  Vol.  iv.  467. 
9  2  Tim.  ii.  2. 


TESTIMONY    OF   THE    FATHERS. 


tween  Pelagius  and  Augustine — and  we  have  now  arrived  at 
the  fifth  century  of  the  Christian  era. 

Not  to  multiply  testimonies  any  further,  take  the  sum  of 
the  whole  matter  as  it  is  made  out  by  Wall  in  his  great  work 
on  infant  baptism  : — "For  the  first  four  hundred  years  of 
the  Christian  era,  there  appeared  only  one  man,  TertuUian, 
icho  advised  the  delay  of  infant  baptism,  in  some  cases,  and 
one  Gregory,  that  did  perhaps  practise  such  delay  in  the  case 
of  his  children;  but  no  society  of  men  so  thinking,  or  so 
practising,  nor  any  one  man  saying  it  v:as  unlawful  to  bap- 
tize infants:  and  that  for  the  next  seven  hundred  years,  there 
is  not  so  much  as  one  man  to  be  found,  that  either  spoke  for, 
or  practised  any  such  delay,  BUT  ALL  TO  THE  contrary."10 
The  weight  of  these  testimonies  is  overwhelming.  Mr. 
Toinbes,  an  English  writer,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Marshall,  who 
had  produced  a  great  many  Fathers  in  proof  of  infant  bap- 
tism, observes,  "It  is  a  wonder  to  me,  that  if  it  were  so 
manifest  as  you  speak,  you  should  find  nothing  in  Eusebius 
for  it,  nor  in  Ignatius,  nor  in  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  nor  in 
Athanasius,  nor  in  Epiphanius."  Wall  replies,  "  This  objec- 
tion is  weak.  For  there  is  no  age  of  the  church  in  which  one 
may  not  find  many  books  that  say  nothing  of  that  matter; 
because  they  treat  of  subjects  on  which  they  have  no  occasion 
to  speak  of  that.  Ignatius  wrote  nothing  but  a  few  letters 
to  the  neighboring  churches,  to  exhort  them  to  constancy  in 
that  time  of  persecution.  Athanasius  was  wholly  taken  up 
about  the  Trinity.  Clemens  Alexandrinus  with  the  heathen 
philosophers ;  (yet  in  him  we  have  now  found  a  place  where 
he  in  a  transient  and  cursory  way  mentions  the  apostles  bap- 
tizing infants.)  Eusebius  writes  the  chronicles  of  the  suc- 
cession of  kings,  emperors,  bishops,  and  the  state  of  the 
church,    either    flourishing    or   persecuted,   under   each  of 

10  Vol.  ii.  501. 


322  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


them.""  And  as  to  Epiphanius,  it  may  be  added,  who 
died  after  the  year  400,  his  silence  is  to  be  regarded  as  an 
argument  in  favor  of  infant  baptism,  since  the  Baptists 
themselves  admit  that  infant  baptism  had  been  prevalent  in 
the  church  from  the  latter  part  of  the  second,  or  beginning 
of  the  third  century. 

From  what  we  have  now  written,  the  reader  is  prepared 
to  see  the  truth  of  the  saying  of  Calvin :  "  What  they  circu- 
late among  the  uninformed  multitude,  that  after  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ,  a  long  series  of  years  passed,  in  which 
infant  baptism  was  unknown,  is  shamefully  contrary  to 
truth;  for  there  is  no  ancient  writer  who  does  not  refer  its 
origin    as  a  matter  of  certainty  TO   THE  AGE   OF  THE 

APOSTLES."  a 

4.  The  symbols  used  by  Christians  in  the  first  centuries 
prove  conclusively  that  infant  baptism  was  the  practice  of 
the  church  in  those  centuries. 

In  the  earliest  ages  of  Christianity,  we  find  the  following 
inscription,  with  the  symbols  of  a  fish,  an  anchor,  and  a 
dove: 

11 A  FAITHFUL,  descended  from  ancestors  who  also  were 
faithful,  here  lies  Zosimus:  he  lived  two  years,  one  month, 
and  twenty-five  days." 

The  following,  with  the  symbol  of  a  dove,  is  an  inscription 
of  the  same  period : 

"  Achillia,  NEWLY  BAPTIZED,  is  buried  here;  she  died  at 
the  age  of  one  year  and  five  months" 

Again : 

u  Sacred  to  the  great  God.  Leopardus  rests  here  in  peace 
with  holy  spirits.  Having  received  baptism,  he  went  to 
the  blessed  innocents.  This  was  placed  by  his  parents,  with 
whom  he  lived  seven  years  and  seven  months." 

11  Vol.  iv.  511,  512  12  Insts.  b.  4,  c.  16,  sec.  8. 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  323 


TaKo  other  examples  from  ancient  existing  memorials  : 

"  Rufillo,  NEWLY  BAPTZED,  tcho  lived  two  years  and  forty 
days  Quintillian  the  father  places  this  to  the  memory  of 
his  son  who  sleeps  in  the  peace  of  Christ." 

"  To  Domitius,  an  innocent,  newly  baptized,  who  lived 
three  years  and  thirty  days." 

"Valerius  Decentius  the  father  places  this  to  his  son, 
newly  baptized,  icho  lived  three  years,  ten  months,  and 
fifteen  days." 

"  To  Pisentus,  an  innocent  soul  who  lived  one  year,  eight 
months,  and  thirteen  days.  Newly  baptized:  buried  in 
the  ides  of  September  in  peace" 

"  To  Leoni:  newly  baptized,  v:ho  lived  six  years,  eight 
months,  and  eleven  days.  He  reposed  the  sixth  of  the  nones 
of  July,  Philippus  and  Sallia  being  consuls,"  A.  D.  348. 

"  To  Aristus,  who  lived  eight  years;  NEWLY  baptized, 
he  went  off  the  first  of  the  nones  of  June:  Timasius  and 
Promotorus  being  consuls,"  A.  D.  389. 

"  Flavia  Jovina,  who  lived  three  years  and  thirty-two  days : 
NEWLY  baptized  :  deposited  in  peace,  the  eleventh  of  the 
calends  of  October,"  A.  D.  367. 

These  will  suffice :  the  cemetery  of  the  early  church  no 
doubt  contains  hundreds  of  thousands  of  graves  not  marked 
by  a  single  inscription,  and  those  that  survive  the  ruins  of 
centuries  are  comparatively  very  few. 

5.  The  continued  practice  of  infant  baptism  by  the  Chris- 
tian church,  from  the  days  of  the  apostles  to  the  present 
time,  is  a  strong  collateral  proof  of  its  apostolic  origin  and 
validity. 

Advocates  for  exclusive  immersion  and  opponents  of  in- 
fant baptism  say  that  their  views  are  so  plainly  set  forth  in 
the  Scriptures,  that  they  need  no  arguments  to  make  them 
clearer,  and  hence  do  not  trouble  themselves  much  on  the 
subject.     Plain,  indeed !     Why  then  have  they  escaped  the 


324  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


observation  of  the  Christian  church  for  so  long  a  time  ?  Are 
not  eighteen  hundred  years  time  enough  to  open  the  eyes  of 
the  church  on  the  subject  of  baptism?  Indeed,  is  not  this 
period  of  time  sufficient  to  confirm  the  church  in  its  views 
on  this  subject?  Without  doubt,  the  continued,  unchanged 
opinion  of  the  church  during  all  this  time,  is  proof  enough 
of  the  authenticity  of  the  doctrine  revealed,  especially  when 
it  is  considered,  that  so  much  talent  and  piety,  for  so  long  a 
succession  of  years,  and  through  so  much  controversial  strife, 
during  the  last  few  centuries,  have  been  exercised  in  the  in- 
vestigation. I  see  no  alternative,  but  that  the  views  of  the 
predobaptists  on  this  subject  are  ascribable  to  ignorance,  or 
dishonesty — or  that  they  are  scriptural  and  sound.  That 
their  views  on  the  subject  of  infant  baptism  are  to  be  ascribed 
to  ignorance,  is  refuted  by  their  talent  and  profound  erudi- 
tion :  that  they  are  dishonest,  is  disproved  by  their  piety 
and  good  works  of  every  description;  and  therefore,  that 
their  views  are  scriptural  and  sound  is  sustained  both  by 
their  talents  and  piety.  We  shall  refer  to  this  subject  again, 
in  another  part  of  this  work.     These  are  the  collateral  proofs. 

We  now  sum  up  the  proofs  adduced  in  support  of  infant 
baptism  as  a  Divine  institution  of  perpetual  obligation. 
First,  the  ground  of  infant  salvation,  is  the  ground  of  infant 
baptism ;  secondly,  infants  have  been  included  under  all  the 
dispensations  of  the  covenant  of  grace  j  thirdly,  the  identity 
of  the  church  under  all  the  dispensations  of  the  covenant  of 
grace  in  all  time ;  fourthly,  the  absence  of  repeal  or  modifi- 
cation of  the  original  gracious  covenant  made  with  man  re- 
specting children;  fifthly,  the  impossibility  of  fully  and 
satisfactorily  explaining  many  passages  of  Scripture  but  in 
harmony  with  the  doctrine ;  sixthly,  the  proper  discrimina- 
tion between  the  terms  oikos  and  oikia,  and  the  specific 
reference  of  oikos  to  children,  little  ones,  BABES  and  SUCK- 


SUMMARY.  3°-5 


lings  ;  seventhly,  the  history  of  the  Christian  church  since 
the  days  of  the  apostles ;  eighthly,  the  force  of  the  symbols 
of  early  Christianity;  and  ninthly,  the  judgment,  talent, 
and  piety  of  the  whole  Christian  church  in  the  present  day — 
the  Baptists  excepted. 


PAET  IV. 

Objections  ta  Infant  baptism  Cmtsitoi, 


CHAPTER  1. 
"INFANT  BAPTISM  I<3  an  innovation." 

If  this  objection  cannot  be  sustained  by  its  friends,  infant 
baptism  must  be  received  as  a  divine  institution.  Let  us 
commence  investigation  at  the  time  when  it  is  stated  this 
innovation  was  made.  "We  shall  quote  the  statements  and 
admissions  of  Baptist  authors. 

Mr.  Judson  supposes  that  it  "  commenced  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  second  century." ■  "No  mention  is  made  of 
infant  baptism  in  the  second  century,  unless  it  be  just  at  its 
close."  Chapin's  letters,  p.  99.  "It  appears  that  infant 
baptism  was  not  practised,  until  about  the  close  of  the  se- 
cond century."  Pendleton  on  Baptism  and  Communion,  p. 
21.  "No  evidence  of  infant  baptism,  before  the  latter  end 
of  the  second,  or  the  beginning  of  the  third  century."  Bap- 
tist Library,  3  vols,  in  1,  p.  10.  Mr.  Broaddus,  an  elder 
in  the  Baptist  church,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  "Slicer  on 
Baptism,"  says,  "Although  the  baptism  of  infants  was  in- 
vented as  early  as  the  CLOSE  of  the  SECOND  CENTURY,"  &c.a 
Mr.  Gale  himself  admits  that  "the  baptism  of  infants  does 
not  appear  to  have  been  practised  till  about  the  latter  end 


1  Judson  on  Baptism,  p.  79.  2  Slicer  on  Baptism,  p.  88. 

326 


"INFANT   BAPTISM   AN    INNOVATION."  327 


^.f  the  SECOND  century."3  That  is,  he  admits  that  infant 
oaptism  was  practised  by  the  church  in  the  time  Irenaeus 
wrote,  which  was  about  the  year  180 — and  thus,  Mr.  Gale 
himself  concedes  that  infant  baptism  was  the  practice  of  the 
church  within  eighty  years  of  the  apostolic  age,  for  John 
died,  A.  D.  100.  Mr.  Alexander  Campbell  also  admits  that 
infant  baptism  is  a  little  more  than  1500  years  old.  "That 
infant  baptism,"  says  he,  "is  of  great  antiquity,  while  in- 
fant sprinkling  is  of  modern  origin,  we  cheerfully  admit. 
We  have  no  objection  to  admit  that  infant  baptism  is  1500 
years  old,  or  perhaps  a  few  years  older."4  In  the  first 
place,  these  admissions  silence  for  ever  the  oft-repeated 
declaration,  that  "  infant  baptism  is  a  relic  of  Popery,"  since 
popery  did  not  rise  till  several  hundred  years  afterward. 
Mr.  Robert  Robinson,  the  Baptist  historian,  instead  of 
showing  that  infant  baptism  was  a  subject  of  abuse  amid  the 
corruptions  of  the  Romish  Church,  which  is  a  fact,  ascribes 
the  origin  of  infant  baptism  to  those  corruptions,  though, 
according  to  the  above  admissions,  its  origin  dates  several 
centuries  earlier.  This  inconsistency,  between  Mr.  Robinson 
and  more  modern  Baptist  writers,  must  be  palpable  to  the 
most  cursory  reader.  In  the  second  place,  by  the  admissions 
above,  we  are  brought  within  a  very  few  years  of  the  aposto- 
lic age;  and  it  is  incredible,  that  at  this  time,  infant  baptism, 
as  a  corruption,  without  opposition  and  historic  evidence, 
could  have  crept  into  the  church.  And  here  the  reader  will 
be  surprised  to  hear  Mr.  Gale  himself  admitting:  "I  will 
grant  it  is  probable,  that  what  all  or  most  of  the  church 
practised  immediately  after  the  apostles'  times,  had  been 
appointed  or  practised  by  the  apostles  themselves ;  for  it  is 
hardly  to  be  imagined  that  any  considerable  body  of  these 
ancient  Christians,  and  much  less  that  the  whole,  should  so 

3  Wall,  vol.  iv,  322.  4  Debate  with  McCalla,  pub.  1824,  p.  365. 


328      OBJECTIONS   TO   INFANT   BAPTISM   CONSIDERED. 


deviate  from  the  customs  and  injunctions  of  their  venerable 
founders,  whose  authority  they  held  so  sacred.  JSrow  opi- 
nions or  practices  are  usually  introduced  by  degrees,  AND 
NOT  without  opposition.  Therefore,  in  regard  to  bap- 
tism, a  thing  of  such  universal  concern,  and  daily  practice, 
I  allow  it  to  be  VERY  probable  that  the  primitive  churches 
kept  to  the  apostolic  pattern.  /  verily  believe  that 
the  primitive  church  maintained,  IN  THIS  CASE,  AN  EXACT 
CONFORMITY  to  the  practice  of  the  apostles,  which, 

doubtless,  AGREED  ENTIRELY  WITH  CHRISTIAN  INSTITU- 
TIONS."5 Established  so  near  the  times  of  the  apostles,  in 
direct  opposition  to  their  authority,  when  such  a  thing  was 
not  then  known  or  thought  of  in  all  the  churches  then  ex- 
isting! What,  all  Christendom  carried  away  blindly  and 
insensibly,  at  this  early  age,  by  an  absurd  and  novel  inno- 
vation !  Especially  too,  when  the  church  soon  became  divid- 
ed into  sects,  ever  watchful,  and  careful  to  prevent  inno- 
vation !  Political  and  ecclesiastical  changes  are  never  made 
without  warm  and  protracted  debates,  and  some  account  of 
the  discussion  and  the  results,  if  important,  is  always  pre- 
served. This  is  the  fact  respecting  the  various  disputes  and 
decisions  of  many  councils  of  the  church;  and  in  like  man- 
ner, had  infant  baptism  been  an  innovation,  it  would  have 
passed  under  review  before  the  whole  Christian  world,  and 
some  council  would  have  transmitted,  through  the  records 
of  the  church,  some  account  of  the  circumstances  and  the 
occasion.  Consider  the  character  of  the  discussions  of  the 
age.  Christendom  resounds  with  strife.  The  press  dissemi- 
nates debates,  in  books,  pamphlets,  and  periodicals,  to  the 
four  winds  of  heaven — the  pulpit  thunders  from  one  end  of 
the  church  to  the  other — the  historian  inscribes  some  ac- 
count of  every  important  innovation  upon  the  pages  of  the 

5  Gale's  Reflections  on  Wall,  p.  398. 


INFANT    BAPTISM    AN    INNOVATION."  329 


times — and  succeeding  ages  are  made  acquainted  with  tho 
past.  But  not  one  stroke  of  the  pen — not  one  whisper — not 
the  least  intimation — no  controversy — no  effort  to  suppress 
the  error — no  decision  of  councils,  general  or  provincial, 
against  it — no  variety  of  sects — no  diversity  of  opinions  on 
the  subject — not  one  iota  of  information — in  all  the  past, 
from  any  source,  respecting  the  time,  circumstances,  and 
place  of  this  supposed  innovation  !  About  300  years  after 
the  apostolic  age,  the  celebrated  controversy,  already  referred 
to,  between  Augustine  and  Pelagius,  on  the  doctrine  of  ori- 
ginal sin,  arose.  The  Pelagian  heresy  was  the  denial  of  the 
doctrine  of  original  sin.  To  refute  this  heresy,  Augustine 
inquires,  "  Why  are  children  baptized  for  the  remission  of 
sins,  if  they  have  none?"  That  is,  Augustine  directs  the 
mind  of  his  antagonist  to  the  ordinance  and  design  of  infant 
baptism,  as  a  proof  that  children  are  depraved,  and  hence 
should  be  baptized,  that  their  title  to  the  purifying  opera- 
tions of  the  Holy  Ghost  may  be  set  forth  in  the  cases  of  all 
such  as  die  in  infancy.  Xow  if  infant  baptism  had  been  an 
innovation  of  man,  and  not  a  divine  institution,  Pelagius, 
with  all  his  skill  and  learning,  would  immediately  have 
proved  the  fact,  and  thus  destroyed  the  force  of  the  argu- 
ment drawn  from  the  established  practice  of  infant  baptism. 
But  so  far  from  this,  Pelagius  admits  its  apostolic  origin 
and  authority;  and  so  embarrassed  was  he  by  its  force,  that 
he  and  his  party  resorted,  as  we  have  seen,  to  a  variety  of 
futile  evasions  to  explain  the  design  of  infant  baptism. 
How  easy  to  have  spared  themselves  all  this  trouble  and 
inconsistency,  by  positively  denying,  and  clearly  disproving, 
the  validity  of  the  sacred  rite  in  its  application  to  infants ! 
The  learned  Dr.  Gill,  a  Baptist,  affirms  that  infant  baptism 
became  generally  prevalent  in  the  fourth  century.  About 
this  very  time,  the  controversy  between  Augustine  and  Pe- 
lagius was  carried  on  with  great  warmth  on  both  sides — and 
28* 


330      OBJECTIONS   TO   INFANT   BAPTISM   CONSIDERED. 


yet  Pelagius  takes  no  notice  of  a  fact,  if  it  existed,  that 
would  have  given  him  great  advantage  in  the  discussion! 
Yea,  more :  it  is  affirmed  that  this  innovation  was  made  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  second  century.  And  how  does  it 
happen,  that  Pelagius,  and  all  the  Fathers,  about  a  hundred 
years  afterward,  never  heard  of  it,  nor  spoke  of  it — espe- 
cially when  it  would  have  been  the  very  information  they 
needed  to  obtain  a  decisive  victory  over  their  antagonists? 

Mr.  Jewett,  in  his  little  book  on  baptism,  says  :  "  While 
from  the  earliest  period,  the  baptism  of  believers  appears  on 
every  page  of  history,  her  voice  is  dumb  respecting  infant 
baptism  for  two  hundred  years  after  Christ." 6  And  what 
of  that  ?  Does  this  prove  that  infant  baptism  is  a  human 
invention  ?  Not  at  all.  In  the  present  day,  we  never  pub- 
lish the  number  of  infants  baptized,  but  notice  only  the 
number  of  adults  baptized.  And  yet  it  is  a  sufficient  refu- 
tation of  the  objection  of  Mr.  Jewett,  when  he  admits  on 
the  very  next  page  that  proselyte  baptism  was  known  among 
the  Jews  A.  D.  70,  and  of  course,  the  baptism  of  children 
was  also  known,  seventy  instead  of  two  hundred  years  after 
Christ. 

Infant  baptism — a  relic  of  Popery,  an  innovation  of  man — 
made  out  at  the  close  of  the  second  century  !  And  where 
teas  the  Baptist  CJiurch  all  this  time?  While  one  is  read- 
ing Mr.  Robinson's  long  History  of  Baptism,  he  looks  in  vain 
for  the  history  of  the  Baptist  Church  at  this  early  period. 
All  Christendom,  FOR  centuries,  he  proves  himself,  were 
baptized  in  infancy,  and  of  course,  THE  Baptist  Church 
WAS    NOT    IN     EXISTENCE    ALL    THIS     TIME.       He     adduces 

various  authorities  in  proof  of  the  prevalence  of  infant  bap- 
tism in  the  early  ages,  but  not  one  for  the  existence  of  the 
Baptist  Church — and  all  his  explanations  of  the  origin  of 

6  Third  ed.  p.  89. 


INFANT    BAPTISM    AN    INNOVATION." 


infant  baptism  are  nothing  more  than  mere  surmises,  or  the 
vaguest  suppositions,  or  assertions  without  a  particle  of 
proof  to  sustain  them.  Whose  voice  is  heard  against  it  ? 
Tertullian's  ?  But  he  allowed  baptism  to  infants  about  to  die, 
and  therefore  he  was  no  Baptist,  but  an  advocate  for  infant 
baptism.  The  Baptists  date  the  origin  of  their  church  at 
the  time  of  the  dispensation  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  run 
down  an  imaginary  line  of  their  perpetuated  existence  to 
the  present  time.  Now  tell  me,  if  the  vast  multitudes  bap- 
tized by  John,  by  the  disciples  of  Christ,  with  those  forming 
the  churches  planted  during  the  first  two  hundred  years, 
constituted  the  Baptist  Church,  how  can  it  be  believed,  that 
this  innovation  all  at  once  should  obtain  an  easy,  successful, 
and  universal  sanction,  without  a  whisper  of  opposition,  and 
ail  at  once  the  whole  Baptist  Church  be  converted  into  a 
paedobaptist  church  ?     The  thing  is  incredible. 

Suppose  at  this  day,  certain  traitorous  citizens  should  arise 
and  proclaim  through  our  nation,  that  the  children  of  slaves 
are  entitled  to  the  rights  of  citizenship,  and  that  the  law 
securing  them  this  right  was  not  only  passed  and  observed 
when  the  constitution  was  first  adopted,  but  that  it  had  been 
observed  all  along  by  the  nation  since  the  constitution  was 
adopted;  do  you  suppose  the  people  at  this  day  would  ac- 
knowledge that  they  had  lived  in  open  violation  of  the  fun- 
damental law  of  the  land  up  to  the  present  time,  and  at  once 
would  correct  their  error  by  universally  admitting  the  chil- 
dren of  slaves  to  all  the  rights  of  citizenship  ?  No,  you 
would  boldly  call  this  a  political  revolution,  and  the  whole 
land  would  rise  up  in  opposition  to  it.  The  movers  in  the 
revolution  would  be  branded  as  traitors,  and  such  public 
measures  would  be  adopted  by  the  nation,  as  would  transmit 
their  names,  covered  with  infamy,  to  all  succeeding  ages  of 
the  American  people.  Such,  in  the  history  of  the  church, 
would  have  been  the  fate  of  the  first  friends  of  infant  bap- 


332       OBJECTIONS    TO    INFANT    BAPTISM   CONSIDERED. 


tisin,  had  it  not  been  a  divine  institution.  But  there  is 
not  one  word  of  history  of  this  kind,  as  we  shall  presently 
see,  for  more  than  a  thousand  j^ears  after  it  had  been  ac- 
knowledged by  the  church. 

Again  : — Suppose  our  nation  to  have  existed  a  thousand 
years,  and  all  this  time  the  right  of  frccborn  children  to  all 
the  blessings  of  freedom  to  have  been  universally  acknow- 
ledged ;  and  a  set  of  men  should  arise,  and  proclaim  that 
the  right  of  freeborn  children  to  the  blessings  of  freedom 
was  an  innovation  of  the  second  century  of  our  republic — 
would  you  not  ask  for  the  proof,  the  record,  the  legislative 
enactment  in  the  matter,  the  circumstances,  and  all  that 
was  materially  connected  with  the  innovation  ?  "Would  you 
receive  bare  assertions  and  assumptions  as  sufficient  argu- 
ments— assertions  and  assumptions,  too,  as  we  shall  presently 
see,  that  contain  the  elements  of  their  own  refutation  ?  You 
would  tell  them,  it  is  not  in  the  constitution — not  in  the 
histories  of  the  nation — not  in  the  histories,  nor  in  the  con- 
stitutions, nor  in  the  usages  of  the  individual  States.  And 
how  would  you  regard  such  a  party  of  men  ?  From  such  a 
party,  hostile  to  the  dearest  interests  of  your  children,  would 
you  elect  a  man  to  the  office  of  president  of  the  United 
States  ?  or  invest  him  with  any  authority  over  the  rights  of 
your  children  ?  And  shall  we,  in  the  nineteenth  century  of 
the  Christian  era,  give  the  least  credence  to  the  declaration, 
that  children  have  no  right  to  association  with  the  church, 
and  that  all  now  in  it,  of  course,  are  to  be  excluded  from  it, 
and  in  future  none  are  to  be  admitted,  because  infant  bap- 
tism is  an  innovation  made  in  the  second  century  ?  Such  a 
declaration  requires  nothing  less  than  a  miracle  to  support  it. 

By  the  admission  of  Mr.  Alexander  Campbell,  we  are  led 
back  fifteen  hundred  years  on  our  way  to  the  origin  of  in- 
fant baptism.  And  I  confess,  I  was  not  only  surprised,  but 
highly  gratified,  when  I  saw  this  honest  and  cheerful  ad- 


"infant  baptism  an  innovation."  333 


mission  from  one  of  the  strongest  opposers  of  infant  baptism 
the  world  ever  saw.  I  take  his  admission  as  equivalent  to 
an  acknowledgment  that  infant  baptism  is  a  divine  institu- 
tion. "We  have  no  objection  to  admit,"  says  he,  "that 
infant  baptism  is  1500  years  old,  or  perhaps  a  few  years 
older"  The  only  question  here  is,  what  period  of  time  is 
embraced  in  these  "few  years?"  Three,  or  three  hundred? 
The  admission  does  not  definitely  determine.  Mr.  Campbell 
did  not  say,  for  he  did  not  know.  How  did  he  know  that 
infant  baptism  was  only  a  few  years  older  than  1500  years, 
unless  he  knew  something  of  the  circumstances  of  its  origin  ? 
If  infant  baptism  be  a  human  invention  of  1500  years'  an- 
tiquity, or  a  little  more,  why  cannot  the  same  mind  that 
makes  this  discovery,  also  point  out  exactly  the  time,  place, 
and  circumstances  of  the  invention?  What  was  the  au- 
thority of  this  investigator  of  ecclesiastical  history  on  which 
he  admitted  the  origin  of  infant  baptism  ?  Having  no 
knowledge  of  the  time,  place,  and  circumstances  of  the  sup- 
posed invention  beyond  1500  years,  Mr.  Campbell  had  no 
more  right  to  say  that  it  was  only  "a  few  years  older,"  than 
that  it  was  300  years  older — and  this  would  bring  us  at 
once  to  the  days  of  Christ  and  his  apostles.  I  see  no  un- 
fairness then  in  taking  this  admission  of  Mr.  Campbell  as 
Equivalent  to  the  acknowledgment  of  the  divine  origin  of 
infant  baptism. 

Mr.  Robert  Robinson,  in  his  History  of  Baptism,7  says, 
"The  baptism  of  babes  first  appeared  in  the  most  ignorant 
and  most  impure  part  of  the  Catholic  world,  Africa.  It  was 
not  the  offspring  of  critical  learning,  or  sound  philosophy, 
for  it  sprang  up  among  men  destitute  of  both,  nor  did  any 
one  ever  take  the  African  fathers  for  philosophers,  or  critical 
investigators  of  the  sacred  oracles  of  G-od ;  and  if  they  be  all 

7  Page  177. 


334      OBJECTIONS   TO   INFANT   BAPTISM  CONSIDERED. 


taken  for  moral  inen,  they  are  overprized,  for  an  eyewitness 
hath  characterized  African  Christians  quite  otherwise." 
And  why  did  not  Tertullian  say  this,  and  thus  at  once 
justify  his  views  of  infant  baptism  ?  Why  did  not  Pelagius, 
in  his  controversy  with  Augustine,  say  it,  and  thus  at  once 
refute  the  objection  founded  upon  infant  baptism?  There 
is  not  one  word  of  authentic  proof  in  favor  of  the  unqualified 
and  bold  declaration  of  the  Baptist  historian.  The  declara- 
tion is  incredible,  since  the  whole  paedobaptist  church  would 
have  discovered  the  truth  of  it,  had  it  been  true,  and  so 
never  have  advocated  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism.  No 
notice  of  the  supposed  innovation  is  upon  record.  Mr. 
Robinson,  it  seems,  in  his  history  of  baptism,  has  carefully 
searched  all  the  records  in  his  reach  on  this  subject,  and  it 
is  certain,  that  he  furnishes  not  one  word  in  proof  of  the 
accuracy  of  his  opinion  or  surmise.  Indeed,  this  oft-re- 
peated assertion,  that  infant  baptism  originated  in  the  cor- 
ruptions of  the  Romish  Church,  has  been  already  proved  to 
be  utterly  false ;  and  upon  the  showing  of  Mr.  Robinson 
himself,  infant  baptism  was  a  prevalent  practice  of  the  primi- 
tive church  long  before  the  origin  of  the  Romish  Church. 

But  where  the  admissions  of  the  Baptists  are  limited,  and 
where  Mr.  Campbell  is  silent,  ice  have  heard  the  evidence  of 
Justin  Martyr,  Iren^eus,  Origen,  Tertullian,  Cy- 
prian, Augustine,  Pelagius,  Ambrose,  and  others, 
filling  up  this  interval  of  a  few  years,  and  completing  and 
confirming  the  admissions  of  the  Baptist  Church. 

Nay,  further,  instead  of  taking  you  back  a  little  beyond 
1500  years,  I  have  conducted  you  into  the  past  nearly  six 
thousand  years,  guided  by  the  lamp  of  Revelation,  and  re- 
vealed to  you  all  the  way  the  right  of  children  to  church 
membership,  formally  acknowledged  under  every  dispensa- 
tion of  grace  since  the  covenant  was  made  with  Abraham. 
As  old  as  the  world  is  the  right  of  children  to  share  with 


INFANT    BAPTISM    AN    INNOVATION."  335 


their  parents  in  the  love  and  mercy  of  God — and  this  right 
has  continued  unrepealed  till  the  present  time. 

It  is  a  matter  of  inquiry,  why  the  Baptists  should  fix  the 
time  of  this  supposed  innovation  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
second  century,  and  the  answer  is  easy.  The  earliest  ob- 
jection to  infant  baptism  they  find  upon  ecclesiastical  re- 
cords is  made  by  Tertullian — which  we  have  already  con- 
sidered— and  forthwith  they  conclude,  that  the  innovation 
was  made  a  "little  earlier"  than  Tertullian's  times — that  is, 
between  the  times  of  the  apostles  and  the  age  of  Tertullian. 
Very  well :  Tertullian  flourished  about  the  year  204,  that 
is,  about  one  hundred  years  after  the  apostolic  age.  Now 
Mr.  Campbell  says,  in  his  debate  with  McCalla,  p.  366, 
"Of  forty-four  writers,  called  orthodox,  besides  a  great 
many  called  heterodox,  who  lived,  and  taught,  and  wrote, 
from  the  Apostle  John's  time  till  the  time  of  Tertullian,  not 
one  mentions  infant  baptism."  Admit  this  to  be  true — 
which  we  do  not — what  then?  Why,  their  silence  is  posi- 
tive proof  that  infant  baptism  was  not  introduced  in  their 
times.  For  though  some  of  these  writers  were  no  doubt 
baptized  by  the  apostles  themselves,  and  were  intimate 
with  the  apostles — though  many  of  them  were  descended 
from  pious  parentage — though  many  of  them  were  men  of 
splendid  abilities  and  of  extensive  and  varied  information, 
ever  watchful  and  jealous  of  the  truth,  and  wrote  and 
preached  much  in  favor  of  the  pure  doctrines  of  Christ,  and 
against  error,  (for  a  "great  many  called  heterodox"  existed 
at  this  time,) — though  the  orthodox  and  heterodox  parties 
were  engaged  in  fierce  controversies  on  theological  subjects 
during  this  period — though  many  of  the  orthodox  died  mar- 
tyrs to  the  truth,  and  thus  proved  their  faithful  attachment 
to  the  cause  of  Christianity — yet  "not  one  of  them  mentions 
infant  baptism  as  an  innovation" — not  one  of  them  raises 
his  warning  voice  in  opposition  to  this  supposed  innovation. 


336      OBJECTIONS    TO    INFANT    BAPTISM    CONSIDERED. 


This  is  incredible,  if  infant  baptism  icas  an  innovation.  It 
is  incontestable,  that  if  any  of  the  modern  Baptists'  way  of 
thinking  existed  at  this  time,  they  would  have  recorded 
their  earnest  and  unqualified  opposition  to  the  innovation. 
Where  was  the  Baptist  Church  at  this  time?  But  this  is 
not  all.  As  already  stated,  we  have  the  positive  evidence 
of  Justin  Martyr,  Irenaeus,  and  Tertullian,  who  lived  at  this 
time,  in  favor  of  infant  baptism,  as  an  apostolic  institution 
and  practice. — We  shall  continue  our  examination  of  the 
objection  before  us  in  the  following  chapter. 


CHAPTER  H. 

HISTORY   OF   OPPOSITION   TO   INFANT   BAPTISM. 

As  the  history  of  the  time,  place,  and  circumstances  of 
the  supposed  innovation  of  infant  baptism,  cannot  be  shown 
by  the  Baptists,  the  divine  institution  of  the  sacred  rite, 
and  its  consequent  apostolic  practice,  must  be  admitted. 
This  conclusion  is  greatly  strengthened  by  the  fact,  that  we 
can  clearly  show  the  time,  place,  and  circumstances  of  oppo- 
sition to  infant  baptism.  Opposition  to  infant  baptism 
originated  in  the  twelfth  century,  when  one  Peter  de  Bruis, 
of  Languedoc,  amid  the  papal  darkness  that  overspread  Eu- 
rope, arose,  and  publicly  preached  that  infants  ought  not  to 
he  baptized,  because  they  could  not  believe,  and  therefore 
could  not  be  saved.  He  continued  to  preach  this  heresy  for 
about  twenty  years,  during  which  time  he  gathered  about 
him  a  considerable  number  of  followers,  but  was  finally 
arrested  about  the  year  1144,  by  papal  authority,  and  burned, 
and  his  followers  dispersed.  The  followers  of  Peter  de 
Bruis,  according  to  Milner,  Wall,  and  others,  "  opposed  the 


HISTORY    OF   OPPOSITION.  33" 


building  of  churches,  and  said  that  singing  was  mocking 
G-od,"  &c;  and  in  regard  to  infant  baptism,  they  Bay, 
"Christ,  sending  his  disciples  out  to  preach,  says  in  the 
gospel,  Go  ye  out  into  all  the  land,  and  preach  the  gospel  to 
every  creature — he  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be 
saved,  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned.  From 
these  words  of  our  Saviour,  it  is  plain  that  none  can  be 
saved,  unless  he  believe,  and  is  baptized;  that  is,  have  both 
Christian  faith  and  baptism.  For  not  one  of  these,  but  both 
together,  do  save!  So  that  infants,  though  they  by  you  be 
baptized,  yet  by  reason  of  their  age,  they  cannot  believe,  are 
not  saved."  This  is  the  only  consistent  interpretation  of 
the  great  commission,  if  faith,  in  all  eases,  is  necess 
baptism  and  salvation,  and  is  the  first  public  oppo- 
sition TO  INFANT  BAPTISM  UPON  RECORD the  followers  of 

Gundulphus  excepted,  who,  according  to  "Wall,  said,  "This 
is  our  doctrine,  to  renounce  the  world,  to  bridle  the  lusts  of 
the  flesh,  to  maintain  ourselves  by  the  labor  of  our  own 
hands,  to  do  violence  to  no  man,  to  love  the  brethren.  If 
this  plan  of  righteousness  be  observed,  there  is  no  need  of 
baptism;  if  it  be  neglected,  baj>tism  is  no  avail." 

The  doctrine  of  Peter  de  Bruis  was  little  known  from  this 
time  till  the  commencement  of  the  Keformaticn,  when  it 
appears,  about  the  year  1521,  the  sect  revived  in  consider- 
able numbers,  "chiefly  from  Saxony  and  the  adjacent  coun- 
tries, headed  by  one  Munzer,  Stubner,  and  Storck,  and  are 
described  by  various  writers  as  very  fanatical,  turbulent,  and 
seditious."  According  to  3Iosheim,  "they  declared  war 
against  all  laws,  governments,  and  magistrates  of  every  kind. 
But  this  seditious  crowd  was  routed  and  dispersed  without 
much  difliculty,  by  the  Elector  of  Saxony  and  other  princes : 
Munzer  was  put  to  death,  and  his  factious  followers  scattered 
abroad  in  different  places."  Afterward  more  timid,  yet 
they  continued  to   disseminate    their  principles,  and  were- 

29 


338       OBJECTIONS    TO    INFANT    BAPTISM    CONSIDERED. 


called  Anabap>tists,  till,  about  the  year  1533,  "a  portion  of 
thein,  perhaps  more  fanatical  and  seditious  than  others, 
headed  by  John  Matthison,  John  Bockhold,  a  tailor,  and 
one  Gerard,  took  the  city  of  Munster,  deposed  the  magis- 
trates, and  proclaimed  John  Bockhold  king  and  legislator 
of  their  new  hierarchy.  Munster  was  taken  the  next  year, 
after  a  long  siege,  their  New  Jerusalem  destroyed,  as  they 
called  it,  and  its  mock  monarch  punished  with  a  most  pain- 
ful death.  The  better  and  larger  portion  of  them  received 
and  looked  up  afterward  to  Menno,  a  native  of  Friesland,  as 
their  leader,  who  had  formerly  been  a  Popish  pr-iest,  and 
who,  with  great  zeal  and  industry,  labored  among  them  for 
more  than  twenty-five  years.  He  drew  up  a  plan  of  doc- 
trine and  discipline,  and  reduced  the  scattered  sects  into 
more  moderation  and  consistency.  They  began  now  to  be 
called  by  the  name  of  Mennonites  as  well  as  Anabaptists. 
But  by  continuing  to  modify  still  more  their  tenets,  and  to 
oppose  the  names  by  which  they  were  called,  they  succeeded 
in  obtaining  for  themselves  in  after  ages  the  name  of  Bap- 
tists"1 

Says  Benedict,  a  Baptist  historian,  "Under  this  head — - 
the  German  Anabaptists  or  Mennonites — I  shall  include  the 
whole  family  of  this  people,  as  described  by  Mosheim,  who 
will  be  my  principal  guide  in  their  history  from  the  remote 
depths  of  antiquity." a  Then  let  us  hear  Mosheim  as  Bene- 
dict quotes  him.  "The  true  origin  of  that  sect  which 
acquired  the  name  of  anabaptists  by  administering  the  rite 
of  baptism  to  those  who  came  over  to  their  communion,  and 
derived  that  of  Mennonites  from  the  famous  man  to  whom 
they  owe  the  greatest  part  of  their  present  felicity,  is  hid  in 
the  remote  depths  of  antiquity,  and  is  of  consequence  ex- 


1  Mosheim,  vol.  ii.  cent.  16th,  part  ii.  c.  3. 

2  Benedict's  Hist,  of  Baptist*,  p.  44. 


HISTORY    OF    OPPOSITION.  339 


tremely  difficult  to  be  ascertained.  This  uncertainty  will 
not  appear  surprising,  when  it  is  considered  that  this  sect 
started  up  all  of  a  sudden  in  several  countries  at  the  same 
point  of  time,  &c.  Their  progress  was  rapid;  for  in  a  short 
space  of  time,  their  discourses,  visions,  and  predictions  ex- 
cited commotions  in  a  great  part  of  Europe,  and  drew  into 
their  communion  a  prodigious  multitude,  whose  ignorance 
rendered  them  easy  victims  to  the  illusions  of  enthusiasm. 
Some  of  them  maintained,  among  others,  the  following 
points  of  doctrine  :  that  the  baptism  of  infants  was  an  inven- 
tion of  the  devil;  that  every  Christian  was  invested  with  the 
power  to  preach  the  gospel,  and  consequently  that  the  church 
stood  in  no  need  of  ministers  or  pastors;  that  in  the  king- 
dom of  Christ  civil  magistrates  were  absolutely  useless;  and 
that  God  still  continued  to  reveal  his  will  to  chosen  persons 
by  dreams  and  visions."  3  Such  are  the  opposers  of  infant 
baptism !  And  such  the  founders  of  the  Baptist  Church ! 
But  what  else  does  Mosheim  say  of  the  anabaptists  or  Men- 
nonites?  Why,  that  "it  is  difficult  to  determine,  with  cer- 
tainty the  particular  spot  that  gave  birth  to  that  seditious 
and  pestilential  sect  of  anabaptists,  whose  tumultuous  and 
desperate  attempts  were  equally  pernicious  to  the  cause  of 
religion  and  the  civil  interests  of  mankind ';" — that  "  we  may 
fix  this  period  soon  after  the  dawn  of  the  Reformation  in 
Germany,  when  Luther  arose  to  set  bounds  to  the  ambition 
of  Rome;" — that  "this  detestable  faction,  in  1521,  began 
their  fanatical  works,  under  the  guidance  of  Munzer,  Stub- 
ner,  Storck,  and  other  leaders  of  the  same  furious  com- 
plexion;"— that  "they  declared  war  against  all  laws,  govern- 
ments, and  magistrates  of  every  kind;" — that  "a  great  part 
of  this  rabble  seemed  really  delirious,  and  nothing  more 
extravagant  or  more  incredible  can  be  imagined  than  the 

3  Benedict's  Hist,  of  Baptism,  p.  45,  46. 


340      OBJECTIONS    TO    INFANT   BAPTISM    CONSIDERED. 


dreams  and  visions  that  were  constantly  arising  in  their  dis- 
ordered brains/'4  Nor  is  this  all.  Mosheim  defines  the 
extent  of  the  "remote  depths  of  antiquity."  He  says, 
further  on:  "The  Mennonites  are  not  entirely  mistaken 
when  they  boast  of  their  descent  from  the  Waldenses,  Petro- 
brussians,  and  other  ancient  sects,  which  are  usually  con- 
sidered witnesses  of  the  truth  in  the  times  of  universal 
darkness  and  superstition."  This  must  have  reference  to 
the  twelfth  century,  since  he  calls  sects  that  arose  at  that 
time,  "ancient  sects."  In  proof  that  he  intended  to  go  no 
further  back  than  the  tenth  century,  is  the  undoubted  and 
universally  admitted  fact,  that  the  Petrobrussian  sect  was, 
as  he  states,  "founded  about  the  year  1110,  by  Peter  De 
Bruis,"  from  whom  they  derived  their  name.  He  fixes  the 
rise  of  the  Waldenses  some  years  after.  "They  were  so 
called  from  their  parent  and  founder  Peter  Waldus,  who 
commenced  his  ministry  about  the  year  1160."  This  is  the 
meaning  of  Mosheim.  And  with  these  began  opposition  to 
infant  baptism.  "Remote  depths  of  antiquity!"  Give 
Meslieim's  remark  the  utmost  latitude — and  is  this  the 
foundation  of  the  Baptist  Church?  A  foundation  laid — 
where,  by  whom,  and  under  what  circumstances,  nobody 
knows  !  Should  any  system  of  vital  importance  be  embraced 
upon  such  vain  and  flimsy  pretensions  ?  If  such  pretensions 
be  true,  the  foundation  is  unknown ;  if  they  be  false,  the 
foundation  does  not  exist.  Nor  is  this  all.  Respecting 
Menno,  the  founder  of  the  Mennonites,  Mosheim  says,  "he 
expressed  his  abhorrence  of  the  licentious  tenets  which  seve- 
ral anabaptists  held  in  relation  to  the  baptism  of  infants,  the 
millennium,  &c. :  he  explained  and  modified  them  in  such  a 
manner,  as  made  them  resemble  the  religious  tenets  which 
were  universally  received  in  the  Protestant  churclies"  5     And 

4  Mosheim  vol.  ii.  cent.  16th,  part  ii.  c.  3.  5  Ibid,  part  ii.  c.  3. 


HISTORY    OF    OPPOSITION.  341 


Wall  observes,  "One  thing  Cassander  says  of  this  Menno 
that  is  particular,  viz.  "that  whereas  some  of  these  men 
(the  Mennonites)  had  first  endeavored  to  fix  the  origin  of 
infant  baptism  upon  some  pope  of  Rome,  Menno  had  more 
sense :  he  was  forced  to  own  that  it  had  been  in  use  from  the 
apostles'  times.  But  he  said  that  the  false  apostles  were  the 
authors  of  it." 6  Some  Baptist  writers  claim  descent  for  the 
Baptist  Church  from  the  Waldenses,  a  body  of  Christians 
inhabiting  the  valleys  of  the  Alps,  and  brought  to  light  in 
the  twelfth  century.  They  were  generally  a  pious  and  ex- 
emplary people — advocated  many  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
Reformation — and  opposed  the  false  pretensions  and  super- 
stitious additions  of  the  Papal  Church.  But  they  did  not 
oppose  infant  baptism:  this  is  the  only  point  that  con- 
cerns us,  and  which  we  shall  now  attempt  to  prove.0  When 
certain  Romish  priests  accused  them  of  refusing  baptism  to 
their  children,  they  denied  the  charge,  but  acknowledged  in 
certain  instances  that  they  had  delayed  baptism  because 
their  own  pastors  or  barbs  were  abroad  in  other  parts  of  the 
work  of  the  church,  and  that  hereby  the  baptism  of  their 
children  was  often  delayed  longer  than  they  desired.7  Their 
own  language  is,  "Neither  is  the  time  or  place  appointed 
for  those  icho  must  be  baptized;  but  charity,  and  the  edifi- 
cation of  the  church  and  congregation,  ought  to  be  the  rule 
in  this  matter  j  yet  notwithstanding  ice  bring  our  children 
to  be  baptized,  WHICH  THEY  OUGHT  TO  DO,  to  whom  they 
are  most  nearly  related  as  their  parents,  or  those  whom  God 
has  inspired  vjith  such  a  charity."  Wall  gives  the  following 
account : — "  The  present  Waldenses,  or  Yaudois  in  Piedmont, 
who  are  the  posterity  of  those  of  old,  do  practise  infant  bap- 
tism :  and  they  were  also  found  in  the  practice  of  it,  ichen 
the  Protestants  of  Luther  s  reformation  sent  to  know  t/ieir 


*  Wall,  vol.  2,  p.  301.  7  Perrin's  Hist,  of  the  Waldenses. 

29* 


342       OBJECTIONS    TO    INFANT    BAPTISM    CONSIDERED. 


state  and  doctrine,  and  to  confer  with  them:  and  they  them- 
selves do  say,  that  their  fathers  never  practised  otherwise. 
And  they  give  proof  of  it  from  an  old  book  of  theirs,  called 
the  Spiritual  Almanack,  where  infant  baptism  is  owned."8 

In  the  17th  article  of  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice, 
adopted  by  all  the  Waldenses  assembled  at  Angrogne,  Sept. 
12,  1535,  they  state  their  doctrine  of  the  sacraments  as 
follows: — Art.  XVII.  "As  to  the  sacraments,  it  has  been 
determined  by  the  Holy  Scriptures,  that  we  have  but  two 
sacramental  signs  or  symbols,  which  Jesus  Christ  has  left 
unto  us :  the  one  is  baptism,  the  other  the  eucharist,  or  Lord's 
supper,  which  we  receive  to  demonstrate  our  perseverance 
in  the  faith,  according  to  the  promise  we  made  in  our 
baptism  in  our  ineancy/'  &c.  Here  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
Waldenses  of  this  assembly;  and  it  seems  that  all  in  this 
assembly  had  been  baptized  in  their  infancy,  and  that  it  was 
the  general  practice  among  the  Waldenses  to  baptize  in 
infancy.  Bishop  Usher  quotes  out  of  Hoveden's  Annals  in 
Henry  II.,  fol.  319,  edit.  London,  a  confession  of  faith  made 
by  the  boni  homines  of  Tholouse — this  was  one  name  given 
to  those  sects  of  men  that  have  since  been  called  Waldenses 
— who  being  summoned  and  examined  before  a  meeting  of 
bishops,  abbots,  &c,  repeated  it  before  the  assembly;  but 
being  urged  to  swear  it,  refused.  In  the  body  of  which 
confession  they  say:  "We  believe  also  that  no  person  is 
saved  but  what  is  baptized;  and  that  infante  are  saved  by 
baptism."  Mr.  Baxter  having  been  called  upon  by  Danvers 
to  produce  any  confession  of  theirs  of  any  ancient  date  that 
owned  infant  baptism,  produces  this,  which  was  about  the 
year  1176,  and  says,  "Would  you  have  a  fuller  proof?"9 
Again,  referring  to  the  superstitious   additions  introduced 


-  Wall.  vol.  ii.  240. 

?  Murduck's  note  on  Mosheim,  Wall,  vol.  ii.  213,  244 


HISTORY    OF    OPPOSITION.  343 


by  the  Papists,  they  say:  "The  things  which  are  not  ne- 
cessary to  baptism,  are  the  exorcisms,  the  breathings,  the 
sign  of  the  cross  upon  the  head  or  forehead  of  the  infant, 
the  salt  put  into  the  mouth,  the  spittle  into  the  ears  and 
nostrils,  the  unction  on  the  breast,"  &c.  And  it  is  with 
reference  to  these  corruptions  that  Perrin,  the  historian  of  the 
AValdenses,  observes,  "being  constrained  for  some  hundred 
years  to  suffer  their  children  to  be  baptized  by  the  priests  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  they  deferred  the  doing  thereof  as  long 
as  they  could,  because  they  had  in  detestation  those  human 
inventions  that  were  added  to  the  sacrament,  which  they 
held  to  be  the  pollution  thereof." 10  Consider  one  more  fact : 
"  Soon  after  the  opening  of  the  Reformation  by  Luther,  they 
sought  intercourse  with  the  Reformed  churches  of  Geneva 
and  France;  held  communion  with  them;  and  appeared 
eager  to  testify  their  respect  and  affection  for  them  as 
brethren  in  the  Lord.  Now  it  is  well  known  that  the 
Churches  of  Geneva  and  France,  at  this  time,  were  in  the 
habitual  use  of  infant  baptism.  This  single  fact  is  sufficient 
to  prove  that  the  Waldenses  were  psedobajjtists."  "  Descent 
is  sometimes  traced  from  the  Cathari  of  Germany,  the 
Paterines  in  Italy,  and  the  Paulicians  in  Greece.  But  the 
following  are  well  authenticated  facts  in  church  history,  that 
"all  these  sects  were  semi-manicheans ;  that  the  Paulicians 
denied  that  this  inferior  and  visible  world  is  the  production 
of  the  Supreme  Being,  and  distinguish  between  the  Creator 
of  the  world,  and  of  the  human  body,  from  the  Most  High 
who  dwells  in  heaven — and  hence  some  have  been  led  to 
conceive  that  they  were  a  branch  of  the  Gnostics  rather  than 

">  Wall,  vol.  ii.  241. 

11  Dr.  Samuel  Miller  on  Baptism.  And  Dr.  Miller  adds,  on  same  page, 
"If  they  had  adopted  the  doctrine  of  our  Baptist  brethren,  and  laid  the 
same  stress  on  it  with  them,  it  is  manifest  that  such  intercourse  would 
have  been  wholly  out  of  the  question." 


344      OBJECTIONS    TO    INFANT    BAPTISM    CONSIDERED. 


of  the  Manichees;  that  they  refused  to  celebrate  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Lord's  supper;  that  they  rejected  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament,  and  looked  upon  the  writers  of  that 
sacred  history  as  inspired  by  the  Creator  of  this  world,  and 
not  by  the  Supreme  G-od;  that  they  excluded  proselytes  and 
elders  from  all  part  in  the  administration  of  the  church; 
that  they  interpreted  the  New  Testament  allegorically ,  and 
rejected  the  two  Epistles  of  St.  Peter;  that  instead  of  con- 
fessing the  human  nature  and  substantial  sufferings  of 
Christ,  they  amused  their  fancy  with  a  celestial  body,  and 
with  a  fantastic  crucifixion,  that  eluded  the  impotent  malice 
of  the  Jews;  that  they  believed  in  the  eternity  of  matter;"  1S 
and  many  other  doctrines  they  entertained  equally  irrational, 
unphilosophical,  and  unscriptural.  And  they  were  branded 
as  heretics  by  the  Greek  Church.  Nor  is  this  all.  How- 
ever heretical  they  were  in  the  above  doctrines,  they  never 
opposed  infant  baptism,  as  no  evidence  of  a  satisfactory 
nature  has  ever  been  adduced  that  they  rejected  infant  bap- 
tism. Why  the  Baptists  trace  the  origin  of  their  church  to 
such  sects  as  these,  it  is  impossible  to  conceive,  unless  it  is 
that  they  strenuously  opposed  certain  extravagant  dogmas 
of  the  Papal  Church,  such  as  the  cross,  the  worship  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  and  other  vain  rites  and  ceremonies  of  human 
invention.  The  pretensions  of  others  to  descent  from  the 
Donatists  are  likewise  unfounded.  This  sect  arose  in  the 
year  811,  and  is  regarded  as  a  schismatic  body,  and  derives 
its  name  from  Donatus,  the  principal  leader  in  the  contro- 
versy that  gave  rise  to  the  sect.  And  let  it  be  carefully 
observed,  that  after  their  separation  from  the  church,  they 
made  no  alteration  in  ecclesiastical  organization,  none  in 
doctrine,  and  continued  the  prractice  of  infant  baptism,  as 

12  Waddington ;  "Wall;  Buck,  p.  329;  Mosheim,  vol.  ii.  233;  Milner, 
vol.  i.  572;   Ruter,  p.  154. 


HISTORY   OF    OrPOSITION.  345 


they  had  done  before  their  separation.  "The  doctrine  of 
the  Donatists  was  conformable  to  that  of  the  church,  as  even 
their  adversaries  confess. " 13  And  yet  Mosheim  calls  them 
&  "schismatical  pestilence,"  and  Milner  observes,  "  as  in 
their  origin,  so  in  their  manners  and  spirit  all  along,  they 
seem  unworthy  to  be  compared  with  the  first  class,  the  No- 
vatian/'14  Another  ecclesiastical  historian  observes,  "The 
schism  of  the  Donatists  was  an  impetuous  torrent  which  in- 
undated and  desolated  the  adjacent  country  j  but  its  limits 
were  prescribed,  and  its  mischief  confined  to  the  African 
provinces." 15  "  Among  all  the  reasons  that  the  Donatists 
gave  why  the  baptism  of  the  Catholics  was  null,  there  is 
none  that  lays  any  blame  on  their  giving  it  in  infancy.  But 
on  the  contrary,  St.  Austin  does  often  make  use  of  the 
instance  of  infant  baptism,  as  granted  by  them,  to  overthrow 
some  of  their  errors  that  they  had  about  baptism."  t9  That 
the  Donatists  did  not  reject,  but  practise  infant  baptism,  is 
evident  from  the  following  testimony: — "About  the  time 
when  the  third  Council  of  Carthage  was  held,  the  schism  of 
the  Donatists  began  to  break  apace,  and  those  who  had  been 
brought  up  in  it  came  over  in  great  numbers  to  the  com- 
munion of  the  church.  This  party  of  men  differed  nothing 
from  the  Catholics  in  any  point  either  of  doctrine,  or  of 
ceremonies,  or  of  sacraments.  Now  the  bishops  of  this 
council  debated  among  themselves  how  far  it  was  expedient 
to  admit  any  that  returned  from  this  schism  to  the  church 
into  holy  orders.  And  as  for  those  who,  having  been  once 
baptized  in  the  Catholic  church,  did,  after  they  came  to 
years  of  discretion,  revolt  to  the  Donatists,  and  were  bap- 
tized by  them,  they  agreed  that  such,  upon  their  return  to 
the  church,  might  be  admitted  to  lay  communion,  but  never 


13  Mosheim,  vol.  i.  123.  14  Milner,  vol.  i.  275. 

15  Ruter,  p.  81.  16  Wall,  vol.  ii.  130. 


345     OBJECTIONS  TO  INFaNT  baptism  considered. 


bear  any  office  in  the  church.  But  the  case  of  those  who 
had  been  born  among  the  Donatists,  and  had  been  in 
their  infancy  baptized  by  them,  and  after  they  came 
to  years  of  discretion,  disliked  the  schism,  and  came  over  to 
the  church,  seemed  very  different.  Concerning  these  they 
could  not  come  to  any  resolution  at  present ;  and  therefore 
they  agreed  that  the  advice  of  two  of  the  most  noted  neigh- 
boring churches  should  be  asked  in  that  matter,  and  they 
made  a  canon  in  these  words :  '  In  reference  to  the  Dona- 
tists,  it  is  resolved  that  we  do  ask  the  advice  of  our  brethren 
and  fellow-bishops  Siricius  and  Simplicianus,  concerning 
those  only  who  in  infancy  are  baptized  among  them/ 
&c.  The  answer  of  these  two  bishops  seems  to  have  been 
in  favor  of  those  concerning  whom  their  opinion  was  asked ; 
and  four  years  after,  the  Council  of  Carthage  determines  the 
point  absolutely,  that  such  persons  may,  if  there  be  occasion, 
be  promoted  to  the  ministry.  You  remember  that  in  a 
former  council  it  was  resolved,  that  they  icho  were  in  their 
infancy  baptized  among  the  Donatists,  and  when  they 
came  to  the  age  of  understanding,  acknowledged  the  truth, 
&c. — they  were  received  by  us — all  will  grant  that  such 
may  undoubtedly  be  promoted  to  church  offices,  especially 
in  times  of  so  great  need."17  Nor  is  this  all.  Optatus, 
Bishop  of  Milevium,  in  persuading  the  Donatists  to  union 
with  the  church,  reminds  them  that  "the  ecclesiastical 
organization  is  one  and  the  same  with  us  and  you.  Though 
men's  minds  are  at  variance,  the  sacraments  are  at  NONE. 
And  we  may  say  we  believe  alike,  and  are  sealed  with  one 
and  the  same  seal:  not  otherwise  baptized  than  you,  nor 
otherwise  ordained  than  you." 18  And  Cresconius,  a  Dona- 
tist,  anxious  to  reunite  his  brethren  with  the  church,  settles 
this  question:  " There  is  between  us  and  you  one  religion, 

17  Wall,  vol.  i.  307-310.  »s  Ibid.  vol.  i.  161. 


HISTORY    OF    OPPOSITION.  847 


THE  SAME  SACRAMENTS,  NOTHING  IN  CHRISTIAN  CERE- 
MONIES DIFFERENT.  It  is  a  schism  that  is  between  us,  not 
i  heresy."19     Donatists  therefore  baptized  infants. 

But  the  Baptists  attempt  to  trace  descent  also  from  the 
N'ovatians,  a  sect  that  arose  in  the  year  250,  and  takes  its 
lame  from  Novatian,  who  separated  from  the  church,  not  on 
account  of  doctrine,  but  mere  points  of  discipline.  "  They 
were  distinguished  merely  by  their  discipline;  for  their 
religious  and  doctrinal  tenets  do  not  appear  to  be  at  all  dif- 
ferent from  those  of  the  church. "  s0  "  There  was  no  differ- 
ence in  point  of  doctrine  between  the  Novatians  and  other 
Christians." 21  Novatian  had  been  a  Stoic  before  he  was  a 
Christian — and  hence  probably  the  rigor  of  his  discipline. 
"Thus  was  formed  the  first  body  of  Christians,  who,  in 
modern  language,  may  be  called  dissenters;  that  is,  men 
who  separate  from  the  church,  not  on  grounds  of  doctrine, 
but  of  discipline.  The  Novatians  held  no  opinion  contrary 
to  the  faith  of  the  gospel." a2  The  origin  of  this  schism  is 
given  by  Neander:  "This  dissension  arose  from  a  contest 
about  the  election  of  a  bishop,  and  from  a  contention  of 
opinions  on  the  subject  of  church  penance."  23  And  Neander 
observes  of  Novatian,  "when  he  thought  himself  near  his 
end,  he  was  baptized  on  his  sick-bed;"  and  in  a  note  he 
quotes  from  a  letter  from  Cornelius,  bishop  of  Rome,  to 
Fabius,  bishop  of  Antioch,  "Novatian  being  in  danger  of 
death,  he  received  the  rite  of  baptism  only  by  sprinkling, 
as  his  condition  required." 24  Benedict  himself,  whose  "His- 
tory of  the  Baptists"  has  superseded  that  of  Backus,  admits, 
in  his  quotation  from  Mr.  Orchard's  account  of  the  No- 
vatians, all  we  have  said  about  doctrine.     "  There  wis  no 


*  Wall,  voL  i.  161.  2°  Watson's  Theol.  Diet.  p.  708. 

*'  Mosheim,  vol.  i.  96.  ffl  Milner,  vol.  i.  180. 

O  Neander's  Church  Hist  p.  M2.        «  Dbid.  p.  142. 


348       OBJECTIONS    TO    INFANT    BAPTISM    CONSIDERED. 


difference  in  points  of  doctrine  between  the  Novatians  and 
other  Christians. " 2S  The  conclusion  then  is  inevitable,  that 
the  j\Tovatians  BAPTIZED  INFANTS. 

The  testimony  of  Augustine,  Pelagius,  and  Celestius  is 
conclusive  on  this  subject.  The  celebrated  controversy 
between  them,  to  which  we  have  already  referred,  occurred 
after  the  rise  of  the  Novatians.  Now  had  the  Novatians 
denied  infant  baptism,  these  three  men  could  not  have  failed 
to  know  the  fact,  for  they  were  great  travellers,  and  careful 
observers  of  the  manners  and  customs  of  the  countries 
through  which  they  travelled.  Pelagius  and  Celestius 
"  spent  the  prime  of  their  age  at  Rome,  a  place  to  which  all 
the  people  of  the  world  then  had  a  resort.  They  were  both 
for  some  time  at  Carthage  in  Africa.  Then  one  settled  at 
Jerusalem,  and  the  other  travelled  through  all  the  noted 
Greek  and  Eastern  churches  in  Europe  and  Asia.  It  is  im- 
possible there  should  have  been  any  church  that  had  any 
singular  practice  in  this  matter,  but  they  must  have  heard 
of  it.  So  that  one  may  fairly  conclude  that  there  was  not 
at  this  time,  nor  in  the  memory  of  the  men  of  this  time,  any 
Christian  society  that  denied  baptism  to  infants." a6  Pelagius 
declared,  that  "he  never  heard,  no,  not  even  any  impious 
heretic  or  sectary,  that  denied  infants  baptism."  And 
besides,  Wall  continues,  "there  are  so  many  books  extant, 
written  at  the  same  time,  by  Cyprian,  Eusebius,  Optatus, 
Austin,  &c,  containing  a  ventilation  of  all  the  disputes 
between  the  Catholics  and  these  men,  in  which  nothing  has 
ever  been  observed  that  should  intimate  that  they  had  any 
such  practice  or  opinion." s7  Indeed,  Mr.  Benedict  concedes 
the  whole  point  at  issue.  "As  this  [the  Novatian]  is  tJie 
first  party  of  importance  who  were  acknowledged  to  be  sound 


*  Benedict,  edit.  1848,  p.  6.  »  Wall,  vol.  i.  476. 

27  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  129. 


HISTORY    OF    OPPOSITION.  349 


in  doctrine  which  withdrew  from  the  established  church, 
it  is  proper  to  give  a  full  account  of  the  reasons  which  led 
to  the  separation/'  &c.33  And  what  were  " the  reasons?" 
Why  just  the  reasons  given  by  the  learned  authors  above, 
and  infant  baptism  is  not  mentioned  as  one  of  those  reasons. 
^And  finally,  the  third  Council  of  Carthage,  which  unani- 
mously refused  to  defer  the  baptism  of  infants  till  the  eighth 
day,  gave  its  decision  at  the  very  time,  in  the  very 

YEAR,    IN    WHICH    THE    SCHISM    OF   XOVATIAN    OCCURRED. 

Thus,  the  testimony  of  a  thousand  years  from  the  birth  of 
Christ  is  undisturbed  by  a  single  instance  of  opposition  to 
the  apostolic  practice  of  infant  baptism.  Nay,  further,  there 
was  no  opposition  to  infant  baptism  for  twelve  hundred  years, 
except  from  Tertullian,  who  admitted  the  universal  preva- 
lence of  it  in  his  day,  and  the  Petrobrussians,  who  founded 
their  opposition  to  infant  baptism  upon  grounds  that  would 
overturn  the  Baptist  Church.  Xay,  I  will  go  further.  For 
more  than  fifteen  hundred  years  of  the  Christian  era,  there 
was  not  a  single  church  on  earth  that  opposed  infant  bap- 
tism upon  the  ground  occupied  by  the  modern  Baptist 
Church.  In  the  year  1522,  according  to  authentic  eccle- 
siastical history,  the  anabaptists  in  Germany  rejected  infant 
baptism  upon  the  principles  adopted  by  the  Baptist  Church 
of  the  present  day.  This  is  absolutely  and  strictly  true, 
according  to  the  positive  and  unequivocal  testimony  of  the 
history  of  the  church.  Opposition  to  infant  baptism  began 
in  the  Dark  Ages — but  we  have  light  to  trace  this  opposition 
to  its  earliest  origin,  and  to  define  satisfactorily  its  authors 
and  its  character.  If  opposition  to  the  practice  of  infant 
baptism  were  now  to  begin  in  this  enlightened  day,  the  Bap- 
tist Church  could  never  exist;  and  if  the  Baptist  Church 
would  now  examine  its  claims  and  pretensions  on  this  sub- 


25  Hist,  of  the  Baptists,  p.  4. 
80 


150      OBJECTIONS   TO   INFANT   BAPTISM   CONSIDERED. 


ject  by  the  light  of  the  sacred  record  and  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory, it  would  soon  cease  to  exist  as  an  independent  branch 
of  the  Christian  church.  Opposition  to  infant  baptism  can 
originate  in  nothing  else  than  mere  surmises,  vague  con- 
jectures, and  fondly  cherished  fancies.  It  was  this  kind  of 
opposition  to  infant  baptism  that  Calvin  resisted  so  boldly 
in  his  day.  Says  he,  "  Whereas  certain  persons  spread 
abroad  among  simple  people  that  there  passed  a  long  series 
of  years  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  in  which  infant 
baptism  was  not  practised,  therein  do  they  lie  most  abomina- 
bly;  for  there  is  no  writer  so  ancient  that  doth  not  certainly 
refer  the  beginning  thereof  to  the  age  of  the  apostles."  And 
the  learned  Brown  affirms  the  same  thing :  "Xone  can  without 
the  most  affronted,  imposition  allege  that  infant  baptism  was 
not  commonly  allowed  in  the  primitive  ages  of  Christianity." 
And  Milner  crushes  the  whole  opposition  to  infant  baptism 
by  a  sweeping,  universal  negative :  "  We  never  had,"  says 
he,  usuch  a  custom  as  that  of  confining  baptism  to  adults, 
nor  the  churches  of  God." 

So  far  therefore  from  denning  the  time,  place,  and  cir- 
cumstances of  the  supposed  innovation  of  infant  baptism,  we 
find  every  thing  to  the  contrary;  the  church  in  no  age 
making  any  effort  to  innovate  on  this  subject,  but  continu- 
ing in  uninterrupted  tranquillity  respecting  the  authenticity, 
validity,  and  practice  of  infant  baptism,  for  more  than  a 
thousand  years;  while  we  are  able  definitely  to  expose  to 
the  world  the  very  time,  place,  and  circumstances  of  oppo- 
sition to  infant  baptism — a  long-standing  doctrine  of  the 
Christian  church. 

I  cannot  close  this  objection  without  making  one  more 
remark.  It  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  that  infant  baptism 
has  been  the  practice  of  the  church  since  the  close  of  the 
second  century.  It  has  been  proved,  that  opposition  to  this 
practice  did  not  commence  within  a  thousand  years  from  the 


HISTORY    OF    OPPOSITION.  351 


beginning  of  the  Christian  church.  It  is  also  unquestion- 
able, that,  had  the  Baptist  church  existed  at  any  time  dur- 
ing this  period,  it  would  have  opposed  the  practice  as 
unscriptural,  and  as  an  innovation;  and  the  Baptist  Church 
would  certainly  have  obtained  information  of  the  time,  place, 
and  circumstances  of  the  innovation.  But  no  opposition  to 
infant  baptism,  as  a  primitive  and  apostolic  practice,  is  heard 
of  in  the  church  till  the  twelfth  century — nay,  upon  the 
principles  of  modern  Baptists,  none  till  the  beginning  of  the 
sixteenth  century — and  therefore  the  Baptist  Church 

MUST  DATE  ITS  ORIGIN  IN  THE  SIXTEENTH  CENTURY.       Had 

the  Baptist  Church  existed  sooner,  we  should  have  heard  of 
its  opposition  to  infant  baptism  sooner.  The  beginning  of 
opposition  to  infant  baptism,  upon  the  principles  maintained 
by  the  Baptist  Church,  is  coeval  with  the  beginning  of  the 
Baptist  Church :  the  iatter  commences  with  the  former :  and 
therefore  to  find  the  time  of  the  one  is  to  find  out  the  origin 
of  the  other :  which  we  have  done  in  this  chapter. 29 

29  Mr.  Gale  takes  exceptions  against  the  books,  and  translations  of  the 
books  of  the  Fathers,  whenever  they  support  the  doctrine  of  infant  bap- 
tism. Dr.  Wall  replies:  "To  one  that  is  so  endless  in  his  cavils  and 
exceptions  against  the  books  and  translations,  we  must,  I  think,  stop  his 
mouth  with  that  answer  of  Mr.  Stokes:  'It  i3  your  common  method  to 
evade  the  authority  of  the  Fathers,  by  saying,  they  are  but  translations, 
&c.  But  you  have  neither  originals  nor  translations  of  those  early 
times  on  your  side.'  "Were  there  no  anti-paedobaptists  then  to  translate?" 
&c.     Wall,  vol.  iv.  362. 


352      OBJECTIONS   TO   INFANT   BAPTISM   CONSIDERED. 


CHAPTER  III. 

OTHER    OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED. 

1.  "  There  is  no  positive  command  respecting  infant 
baptism:  infant  baptism  is  not  explicitly  enjoined  in  the 
Scriptures." 

We  reply,  admitting  this  to  be  true — which  we  do  not — 
this  is  the  strongest  proof  of  its  validity.  It  is  as  clearly 
implied,  in  certain  scriptures,  as  if  it  were  explicitly  en- 
joined} and  a  clearly  implied  duty  is  as  binding  as  one 
positively  enjoined.  But  while  it  is  often  alluded  to  inci- 
dentally, and  embraced  in  general  commissions  without  speci- 
fication, because  it  teas  well  hnovm  at  the  time,  and  admitted 
by  all, — in  other  scriptures,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is  explicitly 
and  positively  referred  to.  Besides,  if  the  force  of  the  above 
objection  be  admitted,  for  the  same  reason,  women  should 
not  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  supper;  nor  should  the  church 
consider  it  optional  to  select  the  mode  of  communing,  or  the 
quality  and  quantity  of  bread  and  wine  to  be  received;  nor 
should  we  keep  the  first  day  of  the  week  instead  of  the 
seventh  as  the  Sabbath.  The  change  of  the  Sabbath  is  not 
explicitly  and  positively  enjoined,  yet  it  is  implied,  and  the 
obligation  to  keep  the  Sabbath  continues  through  all  genera- 
tions. Moreover,  the  absence  of  positive  repeal  is  equiva- 
lent to  the  confirmation  of  the  original  statute,  as  we  have 
proved  in  a  former  part  of  this  treatise. 

2.  "  Repentance  and  faith  are  necessary  to  baptism :  in- 
fants cannot  perform  these  conditions,  and  therefore  they 
ought  not  to  be  baptized." 


REPENTANCE    AND    FAITH    NOT    NECESSARY.         353 


(1.)  True,  they  cannot  believe — the  power  of  faith  is  not 
yet  developed j  nor  are  the  laws  of  faith  yet  applicable. 
They  cannot  repent — they  have  nothing  to  repent  of — they 
are  justified  through  the  atonement  of  Christ,  and  this  justi- 
fication gives  them  as  good  a  title  to  baptism  as  repentance 
and  faith  give  to  the  adult.  "Where  sin  has  been  committed, 
repentance  and  faith  are  necessary,  but  where  it  has  not 
been  committed,  repentance  and  faith  are  not  necessary ;  and 
therefore  the  infant  is  just  as  innocent  in  Christ  as  the 
penitent  believer,  and  has  on  this  ground  just  as  good  a  title 
to  baptism  as  the  adult  believer. 

(2.)  The  Scriptures  require  faith  of  adults,  and  hence 
adults  must  exercise  faith  before  they  are  entitled  to  baptism. 
The  obligation  of  faith  can  be  imposed  only  upon  those  who 
are  capable  of  believing;  but  infants  are  not  capable  of 
believing,  and  therefore  they  are  not  required  to  believe  in 
order  to  be  saved  or  to  be  baptized.  The  irresponsibility  of 
infancy  presents  no  stronger  obstacle  to  infant  baptism  than 
it  does  to  infant  salvation,  and  consequently  the  obligation 
of  faith  enters  not  into  the  question  of  infant  baptism  as  a 
prerequisite,  any  more  than  into  the  question  of  infant  salva- 
tion, and  is  confined  wholly  to  the  case  of  adults,  in  whose 
minds  the  power  of  faith  is  developed,  and  to  whom  alone, 
because  they  are  capable  of  believing,  the  principles  of  re- 
sponsibility are  applicable. 

(3.)  If  this  objection  is  of  any  force  against  infant  bap- 
tism, it  is  of  equal  force  against  infant  circumcision.  But 
God  judged  otherwise.  The  Jews  were  "  broken  off  through 
unbelief,"  which  signifies  that  they  stood  by  faith — and  yet 
their  children  were  graffed  in  with  them.  Faith  never  stood 
in  the  way  of  children  under  the  old  dispensation;  and  as 
God  is  always  the  same,  the  covenant  the  same,  the  princi- 
ples of  moral  obligation  the  same,  moral  relations  the  same, 
the  relations  of  children  to  God  in  Christ  Jesus  the  same, 

30* 


354      OBJECTIONS    TO    INFANT    BAPTISM    CONSIDERED. 


ana  to  their  parents  the  same,  why  make  any  change  in  the 
application  of  the  great  covenant  that  has  received  children 
from  the  beginning?  Nothing  short  of  express  command 
from  heaven,  accompanied  by  a  miracle,  can  exclude  chil- 
dren from  baptism  for  want  of  faith. 

(4.)  The  objection  founded  upon  the  supposed  necessity 
of  repentance  and  faith  as  preliminary  to  baptism,  will  vanish 
when  we  properly  distinguish  between  conditional  and  un- 
conditional salvation.  The  conditionality  of  salvation  has 
no  reference  to  infants,  as  must  be  admitted  by  all,  and 
hence,  wherever  repentance  and  faith  are  explicitly  men- 
vioned  in  the  Scriptures  as  the  condition  of  baptism,  the  case 
ul  infants  is  not  referred  to,  but  the  duty  of  those  who  are 
capable  of  repentance  and  faith.  The  Apostle  Paul  declares, 
"that  if  any  would  not  work,  neither  should  he  eat."  This 
declaration  has  reference  alone  to  those  who  are  capable  of 
working,  and  yet  infants,  who  cannot  work,  are  not  hereby 
to  be  deprived  of  food.  Infants  can  no  more  be  excluded 
from  baptism  upon  this  ground,  than  they  can  be  held  re- 
sponsible for  the  discharge  of  the  conditions  of  salvation. 
Kules  and  obligations  applicable  to  persons  of  riper  years 
cannot  be  prescribed  for  infants  in  order  to  baptism,  since 
baptism,  as  in  the  case  of  circumcision,  is  due  to  infants  on 
grounds  independent  of  accountability.  It  is  on  this  ground 
likewise,  that  infants  are  not  regarded  as  proper  subjects  for 
the  communion,  since,  in  all  cases,  the  proper  observance  of 
the  holy  eucharist  is  involved  in  the  scope  of  responsibility 
Finally,  the  adult  is  saved  conditionally,  and  therefore  he  is 
baptized  conditionally ;  but  the  infant  is  saved  uncondition- 
ally, and  therefore  he  should  be  baptized  unconditionally. 
The  adult  is  entitled  to  both  baptism  and  salvation  con- 
ditionally;  the  infant  is  entitled  to  both  baptism  and  salva- 
tion unconditionally.  If  the  infant  has  an  unconditional 
title  to  salvation,  the  substance,  he  has  undoubtedly  the  same 


REPENTANCE    AND    FAITH    NOT    NECESSARY, 


kind  of  right  to  baptism,  the  outward,  visible  sign  and  seal 
of  salvation.  You  cheerfully  grant  the  infant,  dying  in  in- 
fancy, an  unconditional  right  to  spiritual  baptism,  and  yet 
deny  his  right  to  water  baptism,  which  is  emblematical  of 
the  spiritual.  Baptism  is  the  outward  sign  and  seal  of  the 
covenant  of  salvation,  setting  forth  the  right  of  the  believer 
to  all  the  blessings  of  that  covenant  in  time  and  eternity. 
But  the  infant  has  an  unconditional  title  to  all  these  cove- 
nanted blessings,  and  therefore  he  has  an  unconditional  and 
indubitable  title  to  baptism,  the  outward  sign  and  seal  of  the 
covenant  conveying  these  blessings.  The  title  of  the  infant 
and  the  believer  to  salvation  is  the  same;  their  title  to  bap- 
tism therefore  is  the  same.  In  a  word,  the  objection  is 
founded  upon  the  infant's  unconsciousness.  But  the  infant's 
unconsciousness  is  no  objection  to  his  salvation :  he  is  saved 
through  the  atonement  of  Christ.  But  he  is  unconscious  of 
this  saving  interest  in  the  atonement,  and  as  his  unconscious- 
ness does  not  destroy  his  title  to  salvation,  it  cannot  invali- 
date his  title  to  baptism  that  sets  forth  his  interest  in  the 
atonement.  On  the  ground  of  the  infant's  unconsciousness, 
dreadful  as  the  conclusion  is — and  yet  it  is  unavoidable 
from  such  premises — the  infant  ought  not  to  be  saved.  But 
his  unconsciousness  does  not  disqualify  him  for  salvation, 
and  therefore  his  unconsciousness  does  not  disentitle  him  to 
baptism.  In  a  word,  in  view  of  the  great  principles  of  the 
plan  of  sal 'i at ion,  it  is  impossible  to  deny  the  infant  an  un- 
conditional title  to  baptism,  without  denying  him  an  uncon- 
ditional title  to  salvation — which  would  be  a  most  appalling 
heterodoxy  as  the  foundation  of  the  Baptist  Church.  The 
conclusion  is  inevitable,  that  repentance  and  faith  enter  in 
no  respect  into  the  question  of  infant  baptism. 

There  are  several  other  forms  of  this  objection  to  infant 
baptism  which  we  will  here  consider. 

"  There    is   not    a    single    case    mentioned   in   the   New 


856      OBJECTIONS    TO    INFANT    BAPTISM    CONSIDERED. 


Testament  in  which  baptism  did  not  require  faith  in  the 
adult;  therefore  children  ought  not  to  be  baptized."  There 
is  not  a  single  case  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  in 
which  circumcision  did  not  require  faith  in  the  adult ;  there- 
fore children  ought  not  to  have  been  circumcised  under  the 
Jewish  dispensation.  The  inference  in  both  cases  is  equally 
unsound  and  inconclusive.  For  as  Abraham  was  circum- 
cised in  view  of  his  faith,  and  circumcision  extended  to  his 
children,  so  baptism  should  be  administered  to  the  children 
of  believers,  to  say  no  more,  under  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion. The  sacred  record  of  the  baptism  of  whole  families 
upon  the  opening  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  introduces 
no  new  order  of  things  respecting  children;  the  statements 
are  made  as  if  the  old  order  of  things  had  been  subjected  to 
no  innovation  in  this  matter.  Thus,  "Lydia  was  baptized 
and  her  family"  the  jailer  "was  baptized,  AND  ALL  HIS, 
straightway."  "The  promise  is  unto  you,  AND  YOUR  chil- 
dren." Besides,  not  one  single  adult  believer  baptized  by 
the  apostles,  is  spoken  of  as  descended  from  Christian 
parentage,  while  not  one  adult  believer,  descended  from 
Christian  parentage,  is  said  to  have  been  baptized  in  adult 
age.  That  "the  baptism  of  adult  believers  is  the  only 
gospel  baptism/'  is  argued  by  Mr.  Jewett  "  from  the  spiri- 
tual nature  of  the  Christian  dispensation."  What,  was  not 
the  Jewish  dispensation  spiritual  as  well  as  temporal?  If 
not,  how  could  circumcision  be  "the  seal  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith?"  If  the  Jewish  dispensation  was  not  in  part 
spiritual,  then  none  under  that  dispensation  could  be  saved, 
except  by  the  light  of  nature ;  and  so  the  only  peculiar  bless- 
ings secured  by  the  Jewish  dispensation  to  the  Jews,  were 
those  of  a  temporal  nature !  But  the  Jewish  dispensation 
was  sjiiritual  as  well  as  temporal,  and  hence  circumcision 
was  the  sign  and  seal  of  a  spiritual  dispensation.  And  on 
this  very  ground  infants  have  a  better  title  to  baptism  than 


REPENTANCE   AND    FAITH    NOT    NECESSARY.  357 


Jewish  children  had  to  circumcision,  since  children  now  are 
under  a  better  dispensation,  and  especially  since  Christ  has 
left  unrepealed  the  original  enactment  made  in  their  case. 

"  The  significancy  of  baptism,  and  the  obligation  under 
which  its  reception  lays  its  subjects,  afford  conclusive  proof 
that  it  should  be  applied  only  to  believers."  So  far  as  bap- 
tism refers  to  adults,  this  is  true.  The  same  conclusion  is 
true  as  it  respects  children :  in  riper  years,  they  can  recog- 
nise the  "significancy,"  and  sanction  and  discharge  "the 
obligations"  involved  in  infant  baptism.  In  baptism,  the 
infant  is  brought  under  obligation  to  repent  and  believe, 
should  God  in  his  providence  spare  him  to  the  age  of  ac- 
countability, which  obligation  is  imposed  upon  him  inde- 
pendently of  his  unconsciousness  and  non-concurrence,  and 
which  he  is  bound  to  keep  and  perform.  Obligation,  in  the 
case  of  infants,  is  left  to  be  perfected  by  subsequent  obe- 
dience— indeed,  infant  baptism  expresses  the  obligations  of 
repentance,  faith,  love  of  Christ,  and  a  holy  life.  Infants 
were  circumcised  in  view  of  future  obligations  to  repent  and 
believe;  hereby  they  became  " debtors  to  the  law."  So  under 
John's  dispensation,  the  Jews  were  baptized  unto  future 
repentance  and  faith.  And  so  children  now  are  baptized  in 
view  of  the  solemn  obligations  of  the  whole  subsequent  life. 

"The  gospel  saves  none  but  by  faith.  The  gospel  has  to 
do  with  those  who  hear  it.  It  is  good  news;  but  to  infants 
it  is  no  news  at  all.  None  shall  ever  be  saved  by  the  gospel 
who  do  not  believe  it.  Consequently,  by  the  gospel  no  in- 
fant can  be  saved.  Infants  are  saved  by  the  death  of  Christ, 
but  not  by  [believing]  the  gospel,  not  by  faith."1 

Now  to  believe  in  the  gospel,  and  to  be  saved  by  the  death 
of  Christ,  are  one  and  the  same  thing  in  the  end,  for  salva- 
tion is  the  result.     Believers  are  saved  by  faith  in  the  deat) 

1  Jewett,  p.  101. 


358      OBJECTIONS   TO   INFANT   BAPTISM    CONSIDERED. 


of  Christ,  and  infants  are  saved  by  the  death  of  Christ  with- 
out faith;  hence  children  are  as  much  saved  by  the  death 
of  Christ  as  believers  are.  The  gospel  has  glad  tidings  as 
specifically  for  the  infant  as  it  has  for  the  adult.  If  not, 
•why  mention  them  at  all  in  the  Old  and  Xew  Testaments  ? 
The  mere  fact,  that  infants  cannot  "hear,"  "believe,"  and 
understand  the  gospel,  does  not  invalidate  their  title  to  the 
blessings  of  the  gospel,  since  Christ  died  for  them,  and  now 
ever  lives  in  heaven  to  make  intercession  for  them,  and 
therefore,  hy  the  gospel,  their  title  to  baptism  is  as  certainly 
secured  to  them  as  salvation  is  provided  for  them. 
"  The  Bible  makes  faith  a  pre-requisite  of  baptism." 
So  it  does  in  the  case  of  the  adult,  and  such  should  be 
the  pre-requisite  in  the  case  of  every  adult  person  in  the 
present  day,  who  has  not  been  baptized — such  was  the  order 
in  the  days  of  the  apostles — such  should  be  the  demand  of 
missionaries  in  pagan  countries — and  such  was  the  order  in 
the  case  of  Abraham,  who  first  exercised  faith  and  then  was 
circumcised.  But  with  the  posterity  of  believers — to  say 
no  more — in  Christendom  and  in  paganism,  it  is  different, 
as  it  was  with  the  posterity  of  Abraham.  The  right  of  in- 
fants to  formal  initiation  into  the  church  is  connected  with 
every  formal  dispensation  of  the  covenant  of  grace  in  all 
time.  In  a  word,  the  Baptists  adduce  scriptures  referring 
to  adult  baptism,  and  insist  on  the  universal  necessity  of 
understanding  and  faith  in  order  to  the  legitimate  adminis- 
tration of  baptism.  This  is  a  sophism.  The  premises  are 
particular — the  conclusion  is  universal,  which  is  illogical. 
The  premises  specifically  embrace  adults  only,  and  hence 
children  cannot  be  brought  into  the  conclusion.  The  Uni- 
tarians are  in  the  habit  of  adducing  those  passages  which 
only  prove  that  Christ  is  man,  and  from  which  they  infer 
he  is  not  God,  which  is  a  sophism,  since  his  divinity  does 
not  enter  into  the  premises.     We  all  agree  on  the  points  of 


REPENTANCE    AND    FAITH    NOT    NECESSARY.  359 


adult  baptism  and  Christ's  humanity,  but  these  points  of 
agreement  do  not  logically  embrace  the  negative  of  infant 
baptism  and  Christ's  divinity.  Consequently  the  discussion 
of  infant  baptism  must  proceed  upon  other  and  appropriate 
premises. 

To  sum  up  our  reply  to  the  objection  under  consideration : 
— It  is  objected,  infants  cannot  repent,  and  therefore  they 
should  not  be  baptized.  That  is  the  very  reason  why  they 
should  be  baptized,  provided  a  sufficient  ground  already 
exists  on  which  repentance  is  dispensed  with  in  the  case  of 
infants — and  such  is  the  vicarious  death  of  Christ.  Again, 
it  is  objected,  infants  cannot  believe,  and  therefore  they 
should  not  be  baptized.  Again  we  reply,  that  is  the  very 
reason  why  they  should  be  baptized,  provided  a  sufficient 
ground  already  exists  on  which  faith  is  dispensed  with  in 
the  case  of  infants — and  such  is  the  vicarious  death  of  Christ. 
Again,  it  is  objected,  infants  cannot  exercise  consciousness 
or  moral  intelligence,  and  therefore  they  ought  not  to  be 
baptized.  To  this  we  reply,  that  is  the  very  reason  why 
they  should  be  baptized,  provided  a  sufficient  ground  already 
exists  on  which  moral  intelligence  is  dispensed  with  in  the 
case  of  infants — and  such  is  the  vicarious  death  of  Christ. 
Again,  it  is  objected,  infants  are  not  responsible,  and  there- 
fore they  should  not  be  baptized.  And  to  this  we  reply, 
that  is  the  very  reason  why  they  should  be  baptized,  pro- 
vided a  sufficient  ground  already  exists  on  which  responsi- 
bility is  dispensed  with  in  the  case  of  infants — and  such  is 
the  vicarious  death  of  Christ.  Thus,  the  very  reasons  why 
baptism  is  denied  to  infants,  are  the  very  reasons  why  it 
should  be  granted  to  them.  If  they  could  repent,  believe, 
exercise  consciousness,  or  were  responsible,  their  right  to 
baptism  would  depend  upon  conditions  to  be  performed  by 
them;  but  since,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  they  cannot 
-ne  held  responsible  for  the  performance  of  conditions,  their 


3C0       OBJECTIONS    TO    INFANT    BAPTISM    CONSIDERED. 


right  to  baptism  is  founded  upon  the  vicarious  death  of 
Christ — a  death  that  answers  in  the  sight  of  the  law,  in  the 
case  of  infants,  as  if  they  had  repented,  believed,  and  obeyed 
the  gospel — a  death  that  dispenses,  in  their  case,  with  the 
discharge  of  all  conditions  under  the  gospel  as  pre-requisite 
to  baptism  and  salvation — a  death  that  as  fully  entitles 
them  to  all  the  blessings  of  the  gospel  as  if  they  had  dis- 
charged all  the  conditions  of  the  gospel.  Indeed,  the  infant 
has  just  as  good  a  right  to  baptism  as  Christ  himself  had 
to  circumcision.  Christ's  right  to  circumcision  was  founded 
upon  his  own  inherent  merit;  the  infant's  right  to  baptism 
is  founded  upon  Christ's  meritorious  vicarious  death  for 
him :  the  gracious  relation  which  the  infant  sustains  to  the 
death  of  Christ  entitles  him  just  as  much  to  baptism  as  it 
does  to  salvation :  the  latter  must  be  denied  before  the  for- 
mer can  be  legitimately  withheld. 

Again,  every  argument,  however  plausible,  that  is  opposed 
to  a  known  truth,  is  false.  Thus,  he  who  will  not  work, 
neither  shall  he  eat:  infants  cannot  work;  therefore  they 
shall  not  eat.  Again,  the  Scriptures  require  repentance  and 
faith  in  order  to  salvation:  infants  cannot  repent  and  be- 
lieve; therefore  they  cannot  be  saved.  Here  the  known 
truths  are,  infants  are  entitled  to  food  without  working,  and 
to  salvation  without  repentance  and  faith.  Again,  "circum- 
cision verily  profit eth  if  thou  keep  the  law;"  but  infants 
cannot  keep  the  law;  therefore  their  circumcision  must  be 
unprofitable.  Here  the  truth  opposed  is  the  wisdom  of  God. 
Thus,  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism  is  founded  upon  the 
known  truth,  that  they  are  saved  without  repentance  and 
faith.  In  other  words,  there  cannot  be  more  in  the  con- 
clusion than  is  contained  in  the  premises.  Thus,  infants 
must  be  inserted  in  the  premises  as  follows: — The  Scriptures 
do  not  require  repentance  and  faith  of  infants  in  order  to 
salvation;  therefore  they  may  be  saved  without  repentance 


BAPTISM    IS    SUBSTITUTED,  ETC.  361 


and  faith.  Here  the  conclusion  is  contained  in  the  premises. 
The  Scriptures  do  require  repentance  and  faith  of  adults  in 
order  to  baptism;  therefore  adults  who  believe  are  entitled 
to  baptism.  Here  the  conclusion  is  contained  in  the  premi- 
ses. The  Scriptures  do  not  require  repentance  and  faith  of 
infants  in  order  to  baptism;  therefore  infants,  without  re- 
pentance and  faith,  are  entitled  to  baptism.  Here  the  con- 
clusion is  contained  in  the  premises,  since  infants  are  entitled 
to  salvation  without  repentance  and  faith,  and  right  to  bap- 
tism is  necessarily  involved.  The  same  requisitions  are 
made  upon  adults  for  both  salvation  and  baptism;  but  these 
requisitions  are  dispensed  with  in  the  case  of  infants  for 
salvation,  and  the  right  to  baptism  follows.  By  repentance 
and  faith,  the  adult  has  a  right  to  salvation,  the  thing  signi- 
fied, and  to  baptism,  the  sign  signifying;  but  the  infant, 
without  repentance  and  faith,  has  a  right  to  salvation,  the 
thing  signified,  and  of  course  has  a  right  to  baptism,  the 
thing  signifying. 

3.  We  proceed  to  consider  another  objection.  " Baptism 
is  not  substituted  for  circumcision,  and  therefore  children 
ought  not  to  be  baptized." 

(1.)  Then  the  Christian  dispensation  is  without  an  initia- 
tory sacrament,  and  the  covenant  of  salvation,  under  the 
Christian  dispensation,  is  wholly  destitute  of  a  corresponding 
outward  sign  and  seal.  Consequently  adult  believers  are 
not  initiated  into  the  Christian  church  by  baptism.  We 
then  ask,  how  are  any  who  are  entitled  to  salvation  initiated 
into  the  Christian  church  ?  Why  did  Christ,  upon  the  open- 
ing of  the  Christian  dispensation,  command  his  disciples  to 
baptize?  Why  did  the  apostles  baptize  three  thousand 
believers  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  ?  And  why  do  the  Bap- 
tists now  baptize  even  adult  believers  ?  Why,  because  bap- 
tism is  the  initiating  sacrament  of  the  Christian  dispensation, 
and  hence  baptism  is  substituted  for  circumcision,  the  ini- 

31 


362       OBJECTIONS    TO    INFANT    BAPTISM    CONSIDERED. 


tiating  sacrament  of  the  Jewish  dispensation;  and  therefore 
children  ought  to  be  baptized. 

(2.)  We  shall  consider  this  objection  further  by  noticing 
the  arguments  adduced  in  support  of  it. 

First.  "The  Jewish  dispensation  was  a  civil  institution.' ' 
Granted ;  but  it  was  more.  It  was  typical — typical  of  what  ? 
Not  of  temporal  blessings  merely,  for  these  were  already  in 
possession.  But  of  spiritual  blessings  also,  and  hence  it 
embraced  the  spiritual  interests  of  children,  which  under 
the  Christian  dispensation  cannot  be  formally  set  forth  but 
by  baptism. 

Secondly.  "If  baptism  be  substituted  for  circumcision, 
then  none  but  male  children  ought  to  be  baptized."  This 
by  no  means  follows. 

[1st.]  Adult  females  were  baptized  by  the  apostles,  and 
therefore,  as  the  apostles  varied  in  this  particular,  there  is  no 
reason  why  they  might  not  vary  also  with  regard  to  infant 
females. 

[2d.]  The  limitation  of  one  dispensation  for  special  pur- 
poses, does  not  necessarily  involve  a  corresponding  restriction 
in  another,  in  which  such  purposes  are  not  embraced.  The 
fulness  of  the  Christian  dispensation  includes  infant  females 
as  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  since  the  reasons  for  their 
exclusion  from  circumcision  under  the  Jewish  dispensation 
no  longer  exist.  The  Christian  dispensation  is  more  en- 
larged than  the  Jewish,  and,  like  the  "glorious  gospel," 
embraces  all  nations  j  so  that  as  circumcision  is  no  longer 
answerable,  an  initiatory  rite  must  be  selected  and  enjoined, 
corresponding  to  the  number  of  its  objects — "every  crea- 
ture,"— and  the  range  of  its  blessings — "  all  the  world ;"  and 
the  application  of  this  rite  is  not  confined  to  the  eighth  day, 
nor  to  place,  nor  to  sex.  Under  the  Jewish  dispensation, 
males  only,  whether  Jews  or  proselytes,  received  circum- 
cision, and  the  whole  family  entered  into  covenant,  and  for 


BAPTISM    IS    SUBSTITUTED,  ETC.  363 


this  obvious  reason.  It  was  unnecessary  under  the  Jewish 
dispensation,  that  any  initiatory  rite  should  be  applicable  to 
the  females,  since,  from  the  constitution  of  the  Jewish 
polity,  the  rite  that  initiated  the  males  represented  the  title 
of  the  females  also  to  the  same  covenanted  blessings,  on  the 
exercise  of  faith,  according  to  the  light  of  their  dispensation. 
Indeed,  this  objection,  if  admitted,  proves  too  much.  Adult 
females  were  included  in  the  covenant,  and  were  members 
of  the  visible  church  of  God  under  the  old  dispensation, 
though  they  did  not  receive  the  seal  of  the  covenant  any 
more  than  infant  females.  Were  adult  females  excluded 
from  the  covenant,  or  from  the  visible  church  of  G-od,  under 
the  Jewish  dispensation,  because  they  received  not  the  token 
of  membership  ?  Certainly  not.  They  were  recognised  as 
having  as  good  a  title  in  these  respects  as  the  infant  male 
who  had  been  circumcised.  Besides,  infant  females  were 
included  in  the  covenant,  and  recognised  as  entitled  to 
church  membership,  independently  of  the  rite  of  circum- 
cision. But  infant  females,  and  adult  females  who  believe, 
are  still  included  in  the  covenant,  under  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation, and  as  baptism  is  to  be  administered  to  both 
males  and  females,  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  the 
rights  which  females  had  under  the  old  dispensation,  with- 
out circumcision,  are  now  set  forth  by  baptism.  The  ex- 
ception in  the  case  of  females  is  withdrawn  under  the 
expanded  and  perfected  dispensation  of  Christ :  "  for  there 
is  neither  bond  nor  free,  neither  male  nor  female,  but  we 
are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus." 

There  is  another  reason  why  baptism  should  be  conferred 
on  females  under  the  Christian  dispensation.  Under  the 
civil  polity  of  the  Jewish  people,  as  under  all  sound  civil 
governments,  the  females  are  represented  by  the  males,  in 
voting,  eligibility  to  office,  &c. ;  indeed,  under  the  Jewish 
polity,  in  both  church  and  state,  the  rights  of  females  were 


364      OBJECTIONS    TO    INFANT    BAPTISM    CONSIDERED. 


in  some  respects  absorbed  in  those  of  the  males,  and  thus 
the  females,  from  infancy,  were  recognised  as  entitled  to  all 
the  privileges  of  the  "promise"  or  the  "everlasting  cove- 
nant," and  when  they  arrived  at  the  proper  age,  they  en- 
joyed all  the  privileges  of  the  promise  or  covenant,  in 
church  and  state.  But  under  the  Christian  dispensation, 
the  civil  and  ceremonial  character  of  the  Jewish  dispensa- 
tion having  passed  away,  and  consequently  the  females 
being  no  longer  represented  by  the  circumcision  of  the 
males,  and  infant  females  being  included  in  the  "promise" 
or  "everlasting  covenant"  as  well  as  the  males,  they  are 
entitled  to  baptism,  the  seal  of  the  "promise"  or  "everlast- 
ing covenant,"  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  as  much  as 
the  males.  Under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  their  right  to 
the  blessings  of  the  everlasting  covenant  was  formally  repre- 
sented by  the  males,  and  was  formally  involved  in  their 
relation  to  the  males.  But  under  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion their  right  to  the  blessings  of  the  "everlasting  cove- 
nant" continues,  and  will  continue  to  the  end  of  time;  and 
as  this  right  is  no  longer  represented  by  social  or  civil  rela- 
tions, it  must  be  formally  and  sacramentally  set  forth  by 
baptism,  the  seal  of  the  "everlasting  covenant"  under  the 
Christian  dispensation.  In  other  words,  the  spiritual  mean- 
ing or  signification  of  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  "everlasting 
covenant,"  contained  in  the  circumcision  of  the  males  under 
the  Jewish  dispensation,  is  now  expressed  in  baptism  under 
the  Christian  dispensation.  Under  the  Jewish  dispensation, 
from  the  relation  of  the  females  to  the  males,  the  scope  of 
circumcision  was  the  same  as  though  it  had  been  conferred 
on  both  sexes :  the  meaning  of  baptism  is  now  the  same  in 
its  spiritual  character  as  the  spiritual  meaning  of  circum- 
cision was  under  the  Jewish  dispensation;  and  consequently, 
as  the  females  are  no  longer  represented  by  the  males,  they 
must  be  baptized  for  themselves,  as  expressive  of  their  own 


BAPTISM    IS    SUBSTITUTED,  ETC.  365 


personal,  spiritual  interest  in  the  everlasting  covenant. 
And  thus  as  the  spiritual  as  well  as  civil  interest  of  infant 
females  was  represented  by  the  circumcision  of  the  males 
under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  and  answered  for  infant 
females  as  well  as  if  the  right  had  been  conferred  on  them ; 
and  as,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  the  spiritual  interest 
of  infant  females  cannot  be  represented  by  the  baptism  of 
the  males  under  the  Christian  dispensation, — baptism,  the 
seal  of  the  everlasting  covenant,  under  the  Christian  dispen- 
sation, must  be  conferred  on  infant  females,  or  their  per- 
sonal spiritual  interest  in  the  everlasting  covenant  cannot  be 
formally  and  sacramentally  represented.  The  very  nature 
of  the  Christian  dispensation  entitles  infant  females  to  bap- 
tism; for  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  "  there  is  neither 
bond  nor  free,  neither  male  nor  female,  but  all  are  one  in 
Christ  Jesus." 

There  is  another  essential  reason  why  baptism  should  be 
conferred  on  females  under  the  Christian  dispensation. 
Often  the  females  only  in  a  family  are  converted,  while  the 
males  continue  in  unbelief,  and  consequently  the  females 
should  be  baptized.  Thus,  in  the  nature  of  things,  though 
circumcision  was  denied  to  females  under  the  Jewish  dis- 
pensation, they  should  receive  baptism  under  the  Christian 
dispensation.  And  as  it  is  faith  in  the  adult  female  that 
entitles  to  the  blessings  of  the  everlasting  covenant,  and  so 
entitles  to  baptism  also,  the  formal,  sensible  seal  of  the 
covenant — and  as  infant  females  are  entitled  to  the  bless- 
ings of  the  everlasting  covenant  without  faith,  so  they  are 
entitled  to  baptism  also,  the  seal  of  the  covenant.  The 
rights  of  the  adult  female  who  believes,  and  the  infant  fe- 
male, are  the  same — the  one  conditionally,  the  other  un- 
conditionally— and  consequently  baptism  can  no  more  be 
denied  to  the  one  than  to  the  other.  Christ  is  the  sole 
representative  of  the  infant  female  under  the  Christian  dis- 
31* 


366      OBJECTIONS    TO    INFANT    BAPTISM    CONSIDERED. 


pensation,  and  hence  the  right  of  the  infant  female  io  salva- 
tion and  baptism  can  no  more  be  denied  than  the  gracious 
relation  of  the  infant  female  to  Christ  can  be  annulled. 

There  is  another  and  a  special  reason  why  circumcision 
should  be  abolished  upon  the  establishment  of  Christianity. 
The  covenant  of  grace,  formally  made  with  Abraham,  em- 
braces the  promise  of  the  Messiah,  in  whom  all  nations  were 
to  be  blessed,  and  his  descent  was  restricted  to  the  line  of 
Isaac.  Circumcision  was  the  formal  seal  to  this  promise, 
by  which  Grod  was  pledged  to  fulfil  his  covenant,  and  the 
Jews  generally  were  preserved  in  the  expectation  of  the 
promised  Messiah.  In  this  respect,  circumcision  had  a 
most  important  spiritual  signification.  In  a  word,  it  had  a 
special  prospective  sacramental  import.  Therefore,  when 
the  promised  Messiah  came,  and  made  atonement  for  all 
nations,  in  all  time,  the  design  of  circumcision  was  consum- 
mated, and  circumcision  was  abolished  as  a  rite  no  longer 
significant  or  sacramental  in  its  use;  and  baptism,  retro- 
spectively referring  to  the  establishment  of  Christianity  by 
the  death  of  Christ,  and  signifying  the  "putting  off  the 
body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,"  and  corresponding  to  the 
boundless  fulness  of  the  gospel,  was  substituted  in  the  place 
of  circumcision. 

Thirdly.  "We  learn  from  Acts,  21st  chapter,  that  Paul 
was  censured  by  many  of  the  believing  Jews,  because  he 
'taught  the  Jews  who  were  among  the  Gentiles  to  forsake 
Moses,  sa}'ing,  that  they  ought  not  to  circumcise  their  chil- 
dren/ (Yer.  21.)  How  natural  it  would  have  been  for  Paul 
to  appease  the  clamor  and  conciliate  the  prejudices  of  the 
Jews,  by  replying  that  baptism  was  substituted  for  circum- 
cision. But  we  hear  not  a  word  from  his  lips  on  the  sub- 
ject." xVnd  the  inference  therefore  is,  that  baptism  is  not 
substituted  for  circumcision.  But  the  inference  is  stronger, 
that  that  was  the  very  reason  why  he  prohibited  circumcision. 


BAPTISM    IS    SUBSTITUTED,    ETC.  301 


It  is  most  probable,  that  the  apostle  did  not  forbid  circum- 
cision in  the  case  of  children,  but  upon  the  ground  that  the 
Christian  dispensation  was  provided  with  a  proper  substitute 
in  their  case — and  hence  the  apostle's  silence  is  in  favor  of 
infant  baptism.  The  explanation  of  the  disaffection  of  the 
Jews  on  this  occasion,  will  strengthen  this  conclusion. 
Under  John's  dispensation,  during  which  Jewish  rites  were 
not  abolished,  the  Jews  were  permitted  both  to  circumcise 
and  baptize  their  children.  Therefore,  at  the  death  of 
Christ,  and  the  consequent  abolition  of  the  Jewish  dispensa- 
tion, they  desired  the  same  privileges  that  they  had  enjoyed 
under  John's  dispensation,  to  which  Paul  objected,  on  the 
evangelical  ground  that  circumcision  was  no  longer  ne- 
cessary. The  Jews  wished  to  circumcise  as  well  as  baptize 
their  children.  This  the  apostle  prohibited,  because  bap- 
tism, being  substituted  for  circumcision,  answered  the  whole 
spiritual  design  of  circumcision.  If,  after  this  prohibition, 
the  silence  of  Paul  is  a  proof  that  baptism  is  not  substituted 
for  circumcision,  the  silence  of  the  Jews,  on  the  other  hand, 
is  a  proof  that  baptism  is  substituted  for  circumcision,  for 
they  make  no  inquiries  respecting  a  substitute. 

Fourthly.  In  referring  to  a  council  held  at  Jerusalem, 
composed  of  apostles  and  elders,  to  determine  how  far  Gen- 
tile converts  might  conform  to  Jewish  usages,  Dr.  Bald- 
win, quoted  by  Professor  Knowles,  observes:  "By  the 
unanimous  voice  of  a  council  comprising  most,  if  not  all  the 
apostles  and  elders  of  the  Christian  church,  and  by  the 
approbation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  see  circumcision  put 
down,  and  no  substitute  proposed  in  its  room." 

The  question  considered  in  this  council  had  no  reference 
to  the  substitution  of  a  rite  in  the  place  of  circumcision,  for 
this  had  already  been  done  by  the  great  Founder  of  Chris- 
tianity, but  to  the  abandonment  of  circumcision  and  the 
Mosaic  ceremonial  law.     For,  while  the  apostles  were  giving 


368       OBJECTIONS    TO    INFANT    BAPTISM    CONSIDERED. 


the  brethren  an  account  of  the  "conversion  of  the  Gentiles" 
— observe,  the  people  converted  are  Gentiles — then,  "  certain 
Pilar  (sees,  which  believed,  rose  up,  and  said,  that  it  was 
needful  to  circumcise,  and  to  command  them  to  keep  the 
law  of  Moses."  The  question  then,  is  concerning  "circum- 
cision and  keeping  the  law  of  Moses."  The  council  decided, 
that  the  law  of  Moses  and  circumcision  were  no  longer  bind- 
ing on  mankind,  Jew  or  Gentile.  What  then?  Why,  ye 
Gentiles  obey  the  gospel  of  Christ,  which  we  have  preached 
to  you.  But  what  had  the  apostles  preached  to  these  Gen- 
tile converts?  Certainly  nothing  else  than  the  doctrines 
contained  in  the  great  commission,  viz.  "He  that  believeth 
and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,"  &c;  which  they  had 
preached  before  this  council  met,  and  of  course,  having 
previously  explained  to  them  the  nature  and  design  of  bap- 
tism, no  further  instruction  on  this  subject  was  necessary. 
The  Pharisees  wished  to  add  "circumcision."  All  that  was 
necessary  for  the  apostles  to  do  was  to  put  down  circum- 
cision, which  they  did,  and  sent  letters  accordingly  to  their 
converts,  "which  when  they  had  read,  they  rejoiced  for  con- 
solation." The  question  was  not  concerning  the  truth  of 
Christianity,  but  whether  Judaism  should  be  added  to  it. 
The  apostolic  council  decide  that  Christianity  answers  with- 
out Judaism,  and  therefore  baptism  will  answer  without  cir- 
cumcision. They  had  already  explained  and  proved  Chris- 
tianity, and  all  that  now  remained  was  to  confirm  them  in 
the  faith.  And  so  they  were  commanded  to  "abstain  from 
all  meats  offered  to  idols,  and  from  blood,  and  from  things 
strangled,"  &c;  and  Judas  and  Silas,  who  are  sent  unto 
them,  "exhort  the  brethren  with  many  words,  and  confirm 
them."  Also  Paul  and  Silas  go  "through  Syria  and  Cilicia 
(the  very  places  to  which  the  council  wrote  the  decision 
above,)  confirming  the  churches" — that  is,  establishing  them 
in  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  so  that  though  baptism  was 


BAPTISM    IS    SUBSTITUTED,   ETC.  369 


not  mentioned  in  the  decision  of  the  council,  it  is  most 
probable  it  was  repeated  in  the  preaching  of  the  apostles. 
Indeed,  the  fact  that  these  Gentile  converts  had  been  bap- 
tized, and  now  desired  circumcision,  is  strong  presumptive 
proof  that  the  apostles  considered  baptism  in  the  place  of 
circumcision.  Had  these  Gentile  converts  been  circumcised 
as  well  as  baptized,  then  the  argument  would  have  been 
clear  and  strong  that  baptism  was  not  substituted  for  cir- 
cumcision; and  therefore,  had  the  decision  of  the  council 
been  that  these  persons  should  be  circumcised,  we  must 
have  yielded  the  point  to  our  Baptist  brethren.  But  the 
decision  of  the  council  in  putting  down  circumcision,  most 
clearly  shows  that  the  apostles  and  elders,  "with  the  appro- 
bation of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  considered  baptism,  already 
administered  to  these  converts,  as  sufficient,  and  consequently 
substituted  in  the  place  of  circumcision.  But  finally,  the 
question  to  be  decided  by  this  council  was  not  respecting 
infant  circumcision,  but  the  circumcision  of  adult  believing 
Gentiles.  Had  the  question  of  infant  circumcision  been 
before  the  council,  then  very  properly  the  subject  of  baptism 
would  have  been  considered  with  reference  to  infants,  and 
the  necessary  decision  transmitted  to  remove  any  doubts  that 
existed  in  the  minds  of  the  Gentiles  on  this  subject. 

Fifthly.  "If  circumcision  and  baptism  were  the  same 
thing,  why  was  baptism  administered  to  persons  who  had 
been  previously  circumcised?"3 

[1st.]  It  is  not  contended,  that  they  are  the  same  thing. 

[2d.]  Yet  the  fact,  that  persons  were  baptized  who  had 
been  circumcised,  is  positive  proof  that  circumcision  was  not 
considered  by  the  apostles  as  initiatory  into  the  Christian 
church,  and  hence  baptism  was  administered  in  its  place 
If  the  objection  has  reference  to  John's  baptism,  a  sufficient 

2  Jewett,  p.  69. 


370      OBJECTIONS    TO    INFANT    BAPTISM    CONSIDERED. 


reply,  already  given,  is,  that  John  came  not  to  abolish  Jew 
ish  rites,  and  therefore  his  baptism  referred  to  the  Christian 
dispensation  about  to  be  opened. 

Sixthly.  "  If  baptism  be  substituted  for  circumcision,  will 
it  not  of  necessity  follow,  that  all  servants,  'born  in  the  house 
or  bought  with  money/  must  be  baptized  on  the  faith  of  the 
master?"3     Not  of  necessity  in  all  cases. 

[1st.]  All  children,  "bought  with  money  or  born  in  the 
house,"  ought  to  be  baptized,  and  it  has  been  done,  and  still 
is  done,  by  all  who  properly  regard  their  duty. 

[2d.]  As  it  respects  adult  servants,  however,  it  is  differ- 
ent. Such,  under  the  more  enlarged  dispensation  of  the 
gospel,  can  be  baptized  on  their  faith  alone,  for  the  Christian 
dispensation  is  wholly  spiritual. 

Seventhly.  The  identity  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  dis- 
pensations in  their  spiritual  bearing  is  denied,  on  the  ground 
that  the  "one,  by  its  constitution,  included  carnal  members; 
the  other,  by  its  constitution,  admits  spiritual  members 
only."  4  This  is  a  fatal  mistake.  The  Jewish  dispensation 
was  spiritual  as  well  as  carnal,  or  how  could  any  of  the  Jews 
have  been  saved?  If  none  but  spiritual  members  can  be 
saved,  and  the  Jewish  dispensation  included  none  but  carnal 
members,  then  Moses  and  Aaron  and  David,  and  all  the 
prophets,  with  all  the  members  of  the  Jewish  church,  lived 
and  died  without  hope  !  If  the  Jewish  believer  was  saved 
under  a  carnal  dispensation,  it  must  have  been  through 
some  typical  reference  had  to  the  future  confirmatory  sacri- 
fice of  Christ,  which  gave  the  Jewish  dispensation  all  its 
spirituality  and  saving  efficacy.  And  so  Paul  declares  to 
the  Judaizing  Galatians,  that  it  is  not  different  from  the 
Christian  dispensation  in  its  spiritual  meaning.  "I  marvel 
that  you  are  so  soon  removed  from  him  that  called  you  into 

3  Jewett,  p.  70.  4  Ibid.  p.  71. 


OTHER    OBJECTIONS.  371 


the  grace  of  Christ,  unto  another  gospel,  which  is  not  an- 
other," in  its  spiritual  meaning,  and  differs  only  in  its  ex- 
ternal economy.  Of  course  then  the  spiritual  design  of  cir- 
cumcision, under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  corresponds  to 
the  spiritual  design  of  baptism,  under  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation ;  and  therefore  the  outward  signs  must  represent 
each  other,  so  that  on  the  abolition  of  the  one,  the  other 
must  take  its  place. 

Finally.  "Circumcision  was  a  mark  of  national  distinc- 
tion." Granted;  but  it  was  more \  it  was  a  mark  of  spiritual 
distinction.  "I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and  they  shall  be  to 
me  a  people."  Hereby  the  Jews  are  recognised,  in  the 
highest  sense,  as  tne  spiritual  children  of  God.  In  a  similar 
manner,  baptism  sets  forth  this  distinction  under  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation.  And  therefore  when  the  Galatians  desired 
to  return  to  Judaism,  the  apostle  informs  them  that  "if  they 
should  be  circumcised,  Christ  should  profit  them  nothing," 
since,  "as  many  of  them  as  had  been  baptized  into  Christ, 
had  put  on  Christ."  That  is,  a  profession  of  religion,  under 
the  Christian  dispensation,  is  made  by  baptism,  and  not  by 
circumcision ;  and  hence  baptism  distinguishes  the  people  of 
God  from  the  men  of  the  world,  in  the  same  manner  that 
circumcision  distinguishedthe  Jews,  "as  the  people  of  God," 
from  the  surrounding  heathen  nations. 

To  sum  up  our  reply  to  the  objection  under  consideration : 
— It  is  admitted,  that  there  are  points  of  difference  between 
circumcision  and  baptism,  and  that  there  is  not  in  every 
respect  a  perfect  resemblance  between  them.  But  it  does 
not  follow  therefore  that  one  is  not  put  in  the  place  of  the 
other.  All  that  is  required  to  establish  a  general  agreement 
between  them  is,  that  the  principle  of  both  is  the  same,  that 
the  main  object  of  both  is  the  same,  that  the  same  sacra- 
mental end  is  accomplished.  The  nature  of  prayer,  not  the 
form,  is  essential.     There  are  certain  points  of  dissimilarity 


372       OBJECTIONS    TO    INFANT    BAPTISM    CONSIDERED. 


between  the  ancient  Jewish  passover  and  the  Lord's  supper, 
and  yet  the  principle  of  both  is  the  same,  and  the  latter  is 
substituted  in  the  place  of  the  former.  There  are  circum- 
stantial differences  between  the  ancient  Levitical  priests  and 
gospel  ministers,  and  yet  the  latter  take  the  place  of  the 
former.  There  are  certain  very  prominent  circumstantial 
differences  between  the  beautiful  simplicity  of  Christian 
worship  and  the  gorgeous  services  of  the  ancient  Jewish 
temple,  and  yet  the  latter  are  set  aside  by  the  former.  In 
civil  matters  old  laws  may  be  repealed,  and  new  ones  enacted, 
and  yet  the  main  objects  of  the  former  may  be  retained  under 
the  latter,  and  thus  the  latter  be  properly  regarded  as  substi- 
tuted in  the  place  of  the  former. 

4.  "Christ  was  baptized  in  adult  age;  and  we  ought 
herein  to  follow  his  example. " 

(1.)  John  did  not  begin  to  baptize  till  Christ  was  of  adult 
age. 

(2.)  Then  all  Christians  should  not  be  baptized  till  they 
are  thirty  years  of  age,  for  it  was  at  that  age  Christ  was 
baptized. 

(3.)  The  same  objection  must  be  in  force  against  infant 
circumcision,  since  Abraham  was  not  circumcised  till  he  was 
of  adult  a<re. 

.  o  » 

(4.)  Christ  was  initiated  into  the  Jewish  Church  in  in- 
fancy by  circumcision.  And  lastly,  Christ's  baptism  was  a 
solemn  initiation  into  the  priest's  office,  which  could  not 
legally  have  occurred  at  an  earlier  age ;  and  hence  the  period 
of  life  at  which  Christ  was  baptized  forms  no  objection  to 
infant  baptism. 

5.  "  Our  children  are  with  us  in  the  spiritual  church." 
Very  true;  and  for  that  very  reason,  they  have  just  as  good 
a  title  to  the  formal  recognition  of  this  great  fact,  as  you  had 
when  you  believed.  You  admit,  that  dying  in  infancy,  they 
are  entitled  to  all  blessings  of  the  spiritual  church  in  time 


OTHER    OBJECTIONS.  373 


and  eternity;  surely  then,  living,  they  have  equally  as  good 
a  title  to  all  the  privileges  of  the  external  church,  which 
we  now  enjoy  through  baptism. 

6.  "But  if  they  die  in  infancy  without  baptism,  they 
will  be  saved."  And  well  it  is  so.  The  adult  believer  also, 
if  no  opportunity  to  be  baptized  occur,  will  be  saved,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  dying  thief  on  the  cross;  and  so  would  the 
infant  Jew  have  been  saved,  had  he  died  in  infancy  without 
circumcision,  and  yet  he  was  circumcised,  and  being  circum- 
cised,, when  he  became  capable  of  enjoying  the  privileges  of 
the  Jewish  Church,  he  was  recognised  as  legally  entitled  to 
them.  As  in  the  case  of  the  unbaptized  believing  adult, 
baptism  is  administered  with  reference  not  only  to  present 
character,  but  future  rights  and  obligations,  so  in  the  case 
of  infant  baptism,  it  is  administered  with  reference  to  the 
present  character,  and  future  rights  and  obligations  of  the 
infant. 

7.  "Baptism  does  not  make  the  infant  a  Christian." 
Here  we  are  agreed.     We  do  not  believe  in  baptismal 

regeneration.  The  objection  is  as  good  against  adult  bap- 
tism as  against  infant  baptism.  The  adult  believer  is  no 
more  justified  after  his  baptism  than  he  was  before  his  bap- 
tism. In  neither  case  is  the  heart  changed  by  baptism,  and 
hence  the  inemcacy  of  baptism  to  change  the  heart  is  no 
argument  against  infant  baptism. 

8.  "Baptism  administered  to  infants  is  not  binding,  since 
it  is  necessarily  administered  without  the  exercise  of  volition 
on  the  part  of  the  child."  We  shall  consider  this  objection 
at  some  length. 

First.  Baptism  does  not  originate  obligation,  but  implies 

obligation  already  existing,  founded  upon   God's  original 

right  to  the  child  dying  in  infancy,  and  to  his  obedience, 

should  he  arrive  at  responsible  age.     The  validity  of  infant 

baptism  does  not  depend  upon  the  volition  of  the  subject, 

32 


374      OBJECTIONS    TO    INFANT   BAPTISM   CONSIDERED. 


but  the  divinity  of  its  origin,  and  corresponding  propriety  in 
its  administration.  Infant  baptism  has  been  proved  to  be 
an  institution  perpetuated  by  Christ,  and  hence  the  adult 
who  was  baptized  in  infancy,  has  no  right  to  exercise  a 
private  judgment  in  opposition  to  a  matter  sanctioned  and 
enjoined  by  the  word  of  God,  as  the  standard  of  conscience 
and  moral  liberty.  The  rights  of  private  judgment  are  no 
more  invaded  in  the  administration  of  baptism  in  infancy, 
than  in  the  inculcation  of  moral  truths  in  infant  education 
by  the  parent.  The  doctrines  taught  at  an  early  age  furnish 
the  standard  of  private  judgment,  and  the  child  is  hereby 
brought  under  moral  obligation;  and  hence  the  adult,  bap- 
tized in  infancy,  has  no  more  right,  upon  the  ground  of 
moral  duty,  to  discard  his  infant  baptism,  than  he  has  to 
violate  the  obligations  of  his  early  education.  Infant  bap- 
tism presupposes  the  absence  of  right  in  the  infant  to  private 
judgment,  and  hence  cannot  be  regarded  as  contrary  to  any 
inherent  and  inalienable  right.  The  infant  has  no  inaliena- 
ble right  to  remain  till  he  can  choose  a  standard  of  private 
judgment  for  himself,  nor  can  the  parent  innocently  neglect 
his  religious  education  during  the  immaturity  of  his  reason, 
and  infancy  of  his  moral  powers.  The  objection  founded 
upon  the  imagined  right  of  infants  to  private  judgment  is  as 
much  in  force  against  applying  any  system  of  sound  morals 
in  educating  children,  as  it  is  against  administering  baptism 
to  infants:  if  it  be  usurpation  in  the  latter  case,  it  is  in  the 
former.  Obligation  is  prior  to  the  act  of  volition.  Choice 
does  not  originate  obligation,  but  obligation  is  to  determine 
choice.  Baptism  recognises  obligation  existing  prior  to  the 
act  of  volition,  and  imposes  on  the  subject  the  duty  of  dis- 
charging the  original  obligation,  according  to  the  principles 
and  truths  of  the  gospel.  That  is,  without  baptism,  the  in- 
fant is  under  obligation  when  it  grows  up  to  lead  a  holy  life 
— this  obligation  exists  independently  of  baptism — baptism 


OBJECTIONS    FOUNDED    ON    RIGHT,  ETC.  375 


merely  recognises  this  obligation  in  a  public,  formal,  and 
solemn  manner,  importing,  independently  of  personal  choice, 
the  moral  obligation  of  the  infant  under  the  gospel  adminis- 
tration. The  sense  of  responsibility  lies  at  the  foundation 
of  the  human  mind;  consequently  God  can  justly  and 
properly  impose  responsibility  on  the  infant,  independently 
of  his  concurrence  and  volition.  Thus,  baptism  implies  ob- 
ligation not  found  in  consent,  but  prior  to  the  exercise  of 
the  will,  and  hence  baptism  implies  no  violation  of  the  right 
of  private  judgment,  and  therefore,  in  the  case  of  infants,  is 
not  contrary  to  the  word  of  God.  And  let  it  be  observed 
also,  that  the  obligations  of  the  parents  to  attend  to  the  bap- 
tism of  their  children  is  prior  to,  and  independent  of,  the 
undeveloped  consent  of  the  children. 

Again,  if  the  exercise  of  volition  is  necessary  to  originate 
and  impose  obligation,  then  infants  are  not  bound  by  human 
laws,  nor  by  parental  obligation,  nor  by  the  authority  of 
God  himself,  since  infants  never  sanctioned  the  social  com- 
pact, nor  chose  their  parents,  nor  consented  to  the  authority 
of  God,  and  thus  by  a  single  bold  stroke,  all  obligations  to 
parents,  to  guardians,  to  masters,  to  the  social  compact,  and 
to  God  himself,  are  absolutely  annulled  for  ever;  and  every 
will  in  the  universe,  upon  the  same  principle,  may  assume 
with  impunity,  absolute  and  eternal  independence.  "Man 
is  really  born,  fostered,  taught,  and  governed,  with  little  or 
no  regard  to  his  own  will.  And  even  in  respect  to  civil 
government,  the  greater  part  of  the  circumstances  of  a  man's 
condition  exist  before  Mm,  and  independently  of  him :  for 
example,  the  institutions,  the  laws,  the  customs,  the  character 
of  the  nation  in  which  he  must  share,  and  by  which  his 
own  habits  and  actions  are  mainly  regulated.  And  his  re- 
lation to  the  government  being  determined  by  these  external 
facts,  and  not  by  himself,  it  seems  to  be  a  groundless  and 
inapplicable  fiction,  to  speak  of  that  relation  as  founded  upon 


376      OBJECTIONS   TO   INFANT   BAPTISM   CONSIDERED. 


a  contract,  to  which  he  is  a  party."  "Whewell's  Elements  of 
Morality,  vol.  ii.  216,  217. 

Secondly.  Unconsciousness  does  not  divest  the  infant  of 
a  saving  interest  in  the  atonement  of  Christ,  unless  you  can 
prove  that  his  interest  depends  upon  the  knowledge  of  the 
design  of  the  atonement,  reliance  upon  it,  and  admission  of 
moral  obligation;  in  which  case,  you  would  make  infant 
salvation  conditional,  and  hence  infant  damnation  inevitable. 
Ignorance  does  not  invalidate  the  title  of  the  infant  to  salva- 
tion, and  hence  can  be  no  obstacle  to  his  baptism.  A  Jew- 
ish writer  observes,  "One  may  privilege  a  person,  though 
he  is  incapable  of  knowing  it;  but  one  ought  not  to  dis- 
privilege  a  person  without  his  knowledge" — as  the  Baptists 
do  in  withholding  baptism  from  infants  on  account  of  their 
unconsciousness,  or  inability  to  exercise  intelligible  volition. 

Thirdly.  Children  can  enter  into  covenant  with  the  Lord. 
"Ye  stand  all  of  you  this  day  before  the  Lord  your  God — 

your  little  ones,  TO  ENTER  INTO  COVENANT  WITH  THE  LORD 

your  God."5  "Read  all  the  words  of  the  law,  the  bless- 
ings and  the  cursings,  according  to  all  that  is  written  in  the 
book  of  the  law  to  the  little  ones."  8  The  covenant  was 
made  with  infants  to  be  applicable  in  adult  years.  "The 
Lord  our  God  made  a  covenant  with  us  in  Horeb.  The 
Lord  made  not  a  covenant  with  our  fathers,  but  with  us, 
even  us,  who  are  all  of  us  here  alive  this  day." 7  This 
covenant  had  been  made  with  these  adult  Jews  thirty  years 
before  this  time,  wnen  many  of  them  at  least  were  infants. 
Such  is  the  arrangement  of  Infinite  Wisdom,  whereby  in- 
fants are  made  passive  parties  to  the  covenant,  and  is  a  con- 
clusive and  impressive  refutation  of  the  objection  under 
consideration.  And  so  Gregory  Nazianzen  says,  "Hast 
thou    an    infant   child?     Let   him    be  dedicated  from  his 

6  Deut.  xxix.  11,  12.  6  Josh.  viii.  34,  35.  7  Deut.  v.  2,  3. 


OBJECTIONS    FOUNDED    ON    RIGHT,  ETC.  377 


rradle" — outer  into  covenant  with  God,  which  can  be  done 
formally  in  no  other  way  than  by  baptism.  Under  the 
Mosaic  dispensation,  children,  at  the  age  of  three  years, 
were  considered  capable  of  covenanting  with  God,  and  were 
admitted  as  members  of  the  Jewish  church.  At  three 
years  of  age,  Samuel  "worshipped  the  Lord."8  Timothy, 
from  his  infancy,  knew  the  Holy  Scriptures.9  Would  the 
apostles  have  refused  baptism  to  such  children  as  these? 
Should  we  refuse  baptism  to  such  children? 

Fourthly.  The  same  objection  might  have  been  urged  as 
forcibly  against  circumcision  under  the  Jewish  dispensation, 
and  yet  would  not  have  been  sufficient  to  cause  its  neglect. 

We  may  consider  this  objection  in  another  form.  "Per- 
sons baptized  in  infancy,  in  after  years  may  become  dissatis- 
fied with  their  baptism."  And  so  persons  baptized  in  adult 
years  sometimes  become  dissatisfied  with  their  baptism. 
Abstract  dissatisfaction  is  no  more  valid  in  one  case  than  in 
the  other.  Besides,  the  mere  possibility  that  the  adult  will 
become  dissatisfied  with  his  infant  baptism,  is  far  from  being 
sufficient  to  set  aside  the  whole  weight  of  testimony  in  favor 
of  infant  baptism — a  weight  of  testimony  which  enforces  the 
most  solemn  duty — and  the  possibility  of  dissatisfaction  can 
never  lessen,  much  less  release  wholly  from  obligation.  But 
let  us  carefully  consider  the  reasons  by  which  the  adult  justi- 
fies his  dissatisfaction.  His  doubts  may  be  thus  stated:  "I 
have  been  baptized  in  infancy,  and  though  I  believe  the 
mode  to  be  wholly  non-essential,  yet  as  I  had  no  hand  in 
my  baptism,  I  consider  it  invalid.  And  yet  if  I  could  sanc- 
tion and  adopt  my  infant  baptism  as  my  act,  I  would  give 
up  all  my  scruples  at  once  on  the  subject."  The  whole 
statement  then  of  the  objection  is  this: — In  order  to  the 
validity  of  baptism,  it  is  assumed,  that  the  subject  must  be 


8  1  Sam.  i.  28 ;  ii.  11.  9  2  Tim.  iii.  15. 

32* 


378      OBJECTIONS    TO    INFANT   BAPTISM    CONSIDERED. 


conscious  of  its  administration,  understand  its  nature,  desigEL 
and  obligation,  and  with  such  knowledge,  he  for  himself, 
must  voluntarily  submit  to  it,  otherwise  it  is  not  his  act,  and 
hence  is  not  valid.  As  this  objection  is  one  of  a  most  per- 
plexing nature  to  some  minds,  we  shall  endeavor  satis- 
factorily to  analyze  and  answer  it. 

In  infancy  you  were  entitled  to  all  the  blessings  of  salva- 
tion on  the  ground  of  Christ's  atonement,  and  hence  at  that 
time  you  were  unconditionally  entitled  to  baptism,  the  out- 
ward sign  and  seal  of  such  title.  But  you  forfeited  your 
title  to  salvation  subsequently  by  disobedience  and  unbelief; 
and  yet  a  short  time  since,  you  believed  in  Christ,  and  were 
pardoned,  and  so  recovered  the  title  to  salvation  which  you 
had  unconditionally  in  infancy;  and  which  your  infant  bap- 
tism set  forth.  Why  then  desire  to  have  your  baptism 
repeated?  Take  the  case  of  conversion,  baptism,  and  back- 
sliding in  the  adult — of  one  converted,  say,  at  twenty  years 
of  age,  who  continues  faithful,  backslides  at  thirty  years, 
continues  a  backslider  five  years,  tlien  repents,  believes,  and 
is  pardoned  again — what  now  are  his  views,  and  what  is  his 
duty  respecting  baptism  ?  Why  he  goes  back  to  his  former 
justified  and  happy  state,  and  sanctions  his  baptism  ad- 
ministered fifteen  years  before.  And  so  in  infancy  you 
were  baptized,  because  you  had  then  an  unconditional  title 
to  salvation — in  adult  years  you  forfeited  this  title,  and  re- 
mained an  alien  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel  to  the 
present  time;  but  now  you  have  believed,  and  so  recovered 
the  title  you  had  in  infancy,  and  which  was  set  forth  by 
baptism  in  infancy.  The  very  same  relation  which  the 
reclaimed  backslider  sustains  to  his  adult  baptism,  the  adult 
believer  sustains  to  his  infant  baptism.  Alas,  that  you 
should  complain  of  a  divine  privilege,  and  strive  to  invali- 
date a  right  you  possessed  independently  of  your  knowledge  ! 
Uut  yet  you  can  obtain  your  wish  in  this  matter.     You  cai 


OBJECTIONS    FOUNDED    ON    RIGHT,  ETC. 


have  just  as  much  hand  in  your  infant  baptism  as  you  could 
have  had  in  your  adult  baptism.  This  we  shall  now  set 
forth.  1.  Why  baptism  should  not  be  repeated.  In  bap- 
tism, the  subject  assumes  all  the  obligations  connected  with 
the  everlasting  covenant.  The  violation  of  the  laws  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  after  baptism  does  not  annul  the  obliga- 
tions assumed  in  baptism.  Why  then  repeat  baptism? 
The  import  of  baptism  extends  through  life,  and  is  co-ex- 
tensive with  the  time,  and  corresponds  to  the  character  of 
probation.  When  a  man  is  naturalized,  and  takes  the  oath 
of  allegiance,  he  thereby  pledges  himself  to  keep  the  laws 
of  the  land  so  long  as  he  lives  in  the  country :  the  infraction 
of  the  laws  of  the  land  in  any  instance  does  not  annul  the 
obligations  involved  in  the  oath  of  allegiance — his  obliga- 
tions still  continue,  and  hence  the  oath  of  allegiance  need 
not  to  be  repeated.10  Baptism  is  a  federal  act,  as  circum- 
cision was,  and  imposes  obligation  to  keep  the  whole  of  the 
law.  When  the  law  was  violated,  God  was  reconciled,  not 
by  the  repetition  of  circumcision,  but  by  appointed  sacrifices. 
So  baptism,  as  a  Iradge  of  profession,  as  a  seal  of  the  cove- 
nant, as  a  federal  act,  brings  the  subject  under  obligation  to 
keep  the  whole  law  of  grace,  whereby  he  becomes  a  debtor 
to  the  law  to  the  end  of  life  :  and  whenever  sin  is  committed, 
the  great  sacrifice  offered  on  Calvary,  by  faith  beeomes  the 
procuring  cause  of  forgiveness  and  spiritual  blessings.  Cir- 
cumcision was  never  repeated  to  a  Jew.  The  ceremony  of 
initiation  was  never  repeated  to  a  proselyte.  2.  In  baptism 
God  pledges  himself  to  bestow  upon  the  subject,  continuing 
faithful,  all  the  blessings  of  his  everlasting  covenant,  in 


10  It  may  be  observed,  if  baptism  be  tbe  condition  of  remission  of  sin*, 
then,  in  every  case  of  actual  sin,  baptism  should  be  repeated:  but  from 
the  character  of  baptism  as  above,  it  ought  not  to  be  repealed,  which  i# 
fatal  to  the  dogma  of  baptismal  regeneration. 


380      OBJECTIONS    TO    INFANT    BAPTISM    CONSIDERS© 


time  and  eternity .  Baptism  is  the  standing  seal  on  the  part 
of  God  of  the  whole  covenant  of  grace,  having  a  prospective 
reference  to  the  whole  duty  of  man,  during  the  time  of  his 
probation,  so  that  a  repetition  of  it  would  not  only  be  un- 
necessary, but  profane.  In  the  case  of  backsliding,  the  sub- 
ject of  baptism,  upon  repentance  and  faith,  returns  to  the 
discharge  of  his  obligations  assumed  in  baptism,  and  conse- 
quently there  is  no  more  necessity  for  rebaptism  in  his  case 
than  if  he  had  continued  faithful  from  the  moment  of  his 
conversion  and  baptism.  The  faithfulness  of  the  subject  is 
a  matter  to  be  tested,  and  time  and  opportunity  must  be 
granted  him,  and  hence  a  repetition  of  baptism  could  but 
repeat  a  pledge  already  given,  and  which  had  not  yet  been 
consummated.  Baptism  has  reference  to  future  obligation 
and  the  final  reward;  rebaptism  can  have  no  other  reference, 
and  hence  rebaptism  implies  insincerity  on  the  part  of  man, 
and  want  of  faithfulness  on  the  part  of  God.  The  advocates 
for  rebaptism  are  led  into  error  by  not  perceiving  the  extent 
of  obligations  involved  in  baptism — obligations  extending 
through  the  whole  life,  on  the  part  of  man,  connected  with  a 
standing  title  to  the  final  reward  on  the  part  of  God :  and 
so  for  a  double  reason,  baptism  ought  not  to  be  repeated. 
Such  is  the  character  of  infant  baptism.  3.  A  sign  is  de- 
signed to  prefigure  some  future  thing,  as  is  proved  by 
reference  to  the  nature  of  the  Jewish  dispensation.  Thus, 
baptism  in  infancy  is  designed  to  set  forth  the  child's  right 
to  salvation,  and  in  case  of  death  in  infancy,  or  conversion 
in  after  years,  to  set  forth  spiritual  baptism,  and  consequent 
right  to  all  the  blessings  of  the  atonement  and  privileges 
of  the  church.  All  then  in  this  case  that  I  have  to  do,  is 
to  go  back  and  sanction  my  baptism  administered  in  infancy 
— and  this  is  my  duty,  as  well  as  a  privilege.  I  could  do 
no  more  than  sanction  baptism  administered  in  adult  age. 
4.  There  are  two  rights  set  forth  in  infant  baptism — that  of 


OBJECTIONS    FOUNDED    ON   RIGHT,   ETC.  381 


the  infant  to  all  the  blessings  of  the  atonement,  and  that  of 
Christ  to  the  infant.  These  rights  are  acknowledged  at  the 
time  of  baptism  by  the  church,  and  subsequently  the  subject 
himself  asserts  his  right  to  the  blessings  of  the  atonement, 
and  acknowledges  the  right  of  Christ  to  him.  In  passing 
from  childhood  through  life,  there  is  a  point  where  uncon- 
ditional salvation  ends,  and  moral  responsibility  begins. 
At  this  point,  or  subsequently,  the  child,  or  adult,  may 
sanction,  confirm,  and  continue,  and  should  do  so  by  his  own 
personal  faith,  his  right  set  forth  in  infant  baptism.  Placed 
upon  his  own  responsibility,  all  that  is  necessary  for  the  con- 
firmation and  continuation  of  his  original  right  is,  that  he 
heartily  subscribe  to  the  conditions  of  his  baptism,  acknow- 
ledge Christ's  right  to  him,  embrace  his  right  to  Christ, 
and  continue  by  faith  and  good  works  what  he  uncon- 
ditionally possessed  in  infancy.  I  can  just  as  fully  and 
satisfactorily  sanction  a  right  setting  forth  my  title  to  Christ, 
and  his  to  me,  after,  as  before,  or  at  its  administration — yea, 
the  more  so,  it  seems  to  me,  after  its  administration  than 
before,  since  by  my  faith,  I  voluntarily  continue  a  right 
possessed  unconditionally  in  infancy.  5.  The  time  of  sanc- 
tioning baptism  is  non-essential.  A  freeborn  infant  is  en- 
titled to  all  the  blessings  of  freedom.  These  blessings  he 
may  forfeit  in  subsequent  life,  by  a  violation  of  the  law 
which  secures  them,  or  he  may  appropriate  and  enjoy  them 
by  obedience  to  the  law:  thus  what  he  enjoyed  in  infancy 
unconditionally,  he  now  enjoys  conditionally.  You  are  a 
freeman.  Will  any  one  say,  that  you  are  any  more  entitled 
to  freedom  now  than  when  in  infancy?  You  were  free  by 
relation,  and  have  continued  your  right  to  freedom  by  the 
discharge  of  the  necessary  conditions.  And  yet  you  are  no 
more  free  to-day  than  you  were  in  infancy.  In  a  similar 
manner,  in  view  of  the  atonement  of  Christ,  you  were  born 
unconditionally  entitled  to  all  the  blessings  of  salvation. 


382      OBJECTIONS   TO    INFANT   BAPTISM    CONSIDERED. 


which  title  you  can  confirm  by  subsequent  faith  and  obe- 
dience, or  forfeit  by  actual  transgression.  Baptism  was  the 
outward  sign  and  seal  of  your  title  in  infancy;  faith  is  the 
condition  of  your  title  in  adult  age;  and  hence  faith  con- 
firms the  design  of  baptism  administered  in  infancy,  while 
you  voluntarily  sanction  the  obligations  of  the  rite  adminis- 
tered at  that  time.  As  a  freeman,  going  into  another  coun- 
try, does  not  forfeit  his  original  title  to  the  privileges  of  his 
native  land,  but  may  return  at  any  time,  and  be  recognised 
as  a  free  citizen,  without  the  usual  preliminaries  of  natural- 
ization; so  the  adult,  baptized  in  infancy,  by  hearty  repent- 
ance and  faith,  may  sanction  his  infant  baptism,  recover  his 
original  title,  and  enjoy  all  the  blessings  of  salvation  to 
which  he  was  unconditionally  entitled  in  infancy.  Thus,  all 
along  the  same  character  is  maintained,  and  hence  the  time 
of  baptism  is  non-essential;  only  it  should  be  administered 
as  soon  as  possible. 

A  second  illustration  may  be  drawn  from  the  atonement 
of  Christ,  which  had  a  retrospective  as  well  as  prospective 
reference.  The  old  world  looked  forward  to  it,  we  look 
back  to  it :  in  both  cases  it  is  equally  efficacious — extending 
salvation  to  us  this  day,  more  than  eighteen  hundred  years 
after  it  was  made,  as  well  as  to  those  who  looked  foward  to 
it  in  faith  more  than  four  thousand  years  before  the  coming 
of  Christ.  Faith  in  the  atonement,  and  not  the  time  of 
the  atonement,  is  the  condition  of  salvation.  And  so  the 
time  of  baptism  is  non-essential;  the  will  of  the  adult  be- 
liever may  sanction  baptism  administered  in  infancy,  as  well 
as  in  adult  age,  as  the  case  may  be,  with  equal  validity. 
And  so  we  conclude,  the  adult  believer,  who  has  been  bap- 
tized in  infancy,  may  look  back  to  his  infant  baptism,  and 
sanction  it  as  his  baptism,  acknowledge  and  subscribe  to  the 
divine  proprietorship  therein  set  forth,  confirm  and  continue 
his  title  to  all  the  covenanted  mercies  of  the  atonement,  of 


OBJECTIONS    FOUNDED    ON    RIGHT,   ETC.  383 


which  baptism  was  the  sign  and  seal  in  infancy,  and  thus 
justly  and  safely  consider  himself  legally  and  properly  ini- 
tiated into  the  external  and  spiritual  church  of  Christ,  under 
the  Christian  dispensation,  as  the  adult  Jew  regarded  him- 
self in  church  relations  under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  in 
view  of  his  infant  circumcision,  and  subsequent  faith  and 
obedience.  The  infant  is  unconditionally  entitled  to  bap- 
tism :  the  adult  believer  continues  that  right  by  faith :  hence 
the  adult  believer,  baptized  in  infancy,  has  a  right  to  church 
membership,  and  all  the  privileges,  institutions,  and  blessings 
of  the  external  and  spiritual  church  of  Christ  without  the 
necessity  of  repeated  baptism.  The  whole  question  then 
turns  upon  the  validity  of  infant  baptism.  If  you  believe 
in  its  validity,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  you  could  not 
sanction  it  at  the  time  it  was  administered.  Do  you  deny 
the  validity  of  infant  baptism  ?  jNTo.  Then  your  scruples 
are  groundless,  and  the  objection  must  be  relinquished. 

Children  circumcised  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation  were 
thereby  formally  and  solemnly  obligated  from  the  earliest 
responsible  period,  to  observe  the  whole  law,  moral,  cere- 
monial, and  civil:  "Every  man,"  says  the  apostle,  "that  is 
circumcised  is  a  debtor  to  the  whole  law."  So  children 
baptized  under  the  Christian  dispensation  are  formally  and 
solemnly  obligated,  from  the  earliest  responsible  period,  to 
observe  the  whole  law,  moral  and  evangelical :  and  this  obli- 
gation, as  in  the  case  of  the  infant  Jew,  extends  through  all 
subsequent  life.  And  children  under  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation have  no  more  right  to  say  whether  they  will  be 
placed  under  such  obligation,  than  the  infant  Jew  had, 
under  the  Mosaic  dispensation.  To  deny  this,  is  to  reflect 
upon  the  wisdom  and  sovereignty  of  G-od  in  the  institution 
of  circumcision.  "  Circumcision  verily  profiteth,  if  thou 
keep  the  law" — but  infants  could  not  keep  the  law;  there- 
fore they  were  to  keep  the  law  when  they  arrived  at  a  re- 


384      OBJECTIONS    TO    INFANT   BAPTISM    CONSIDERED 


sponsible  age:  so  in  the  case  of  baptism.  "But  if  thou  be 
a  breaker  of  the  law,  thy  circumcision  is  made  uncircum- 
cision" — but  infants  could  not  break  the  law;  therefore  the 
law  was  to  be  in  force  when  they  arrived  at  a  responsible 
age:  so  in  the  case  of  baptism.  Baptism  in  infancy  as 
much  refers  to  obligation  in  subsequent  life  as  circumcision 
did  in  the  case  of  the  infant  Jew.  Besides,  infants  are  born 
parties  to  the  everlasting  covenant,  and  therefore  their  con- 
sent to  become  a  party  to  it  is  not  required  of  them — they 
are  that  already.  Moreover,  baptism  does  not  involve  new 
obligations,  but  is  a  formal  recognition  of  obligations  already 
existing;  not  a  solitary  duty  is  implied  in  baptism  which 
did  not  antecedently  exist.  The  principle  on  which  infants 
are  bound  in  covenant  with  God,  without  their  knowledge 
or  consent,  we  repeat,  is  thus  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures: 
"Ye  stand  this  day  all  of  you  before  the  Lord  your  God; 
your  captains  of  your  tribes,  your  elders,  and  your  officers, 
with  all  the  men  of  Israel,  your  little  ones,  your  wives,  and 
thy  stranger  that  is  in  thy  camp,  from  the  hewer  of  thy 
wood  unto  the  drawer  of  thy  water;  that  thou  shouldst  enter 
into  covenant  with  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  into  his  oath, 
which  the  Lord  thy  God  maketh  with  thee  this  day ;  that  he 
may  establish  thee  to-day  for  a  people  unto  himself,  and  that 
he  may  be  unto  thee  a  God,  as  he  hath  said  unto  thee,  and 
as  he  hath  sworn  unto  thy  fathers,  to  Abraham,  to  Isaac, 
and  to  Jacob.  Neither  with  you  only  do  I  make  this  cove- 
nant and  this  oath,  but  with  him  that  standeth  here  with 
us  this  day  before  the  Lord  our  God,  and  also  with  him 

THAT     IS    NOT     HERE    WITH    US     THIS    DAY."     Deut.    Xxix. 

10-15.  "Little  ones,"  and  "him  that  standeth  here  with 
us  this  day" — the  present  generation,  from  the  youngest  to 
the  oldest  member  of  it.  "And  also  him  that  is  not  here 
with  us  this  day" — all  future  generations.  Now  if  the 
fcupremacy  and  authority  of  Jehovah  can  be  denied,  and 


OBJECTIONS    FOUNDED    ON    RIGHT,  ETC.  385 


controversy  with  him  be  successfully  maintained,  and  obli- 
gation to  him  annulled,  then  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism 
may  be  cancelled;  otherwise,  as  the  seal  of  the  everlasting 
covenant,  it  may  as  properly  be  conferred  upon  infants,  under 
the  Christian  dispensation,  without  their  knowledge  or  con- 
sent, as  circumcision,  the  seal  of  the  everlasting  covenant, 
was  conferred  upon  infants,  under  the  Jewish  dispensation, 
without  their  knowledge  or  consent.  Hannah  dedicated  her 
son  to  God  without  his  knowledge  or  consent,  and  God  ac- 
cepted the  act.  I  will  go  further.  This  objection  is  infi- 
delity in  its  most  arrogant  form.  It  cancels  all  obligation 
of  man  to  God.  It  is  opposed,  as  we  have  stated,  to  the  re- 
ligious education  of  children  without  their  consent.  It 
annuls  the  obligation  of  parents  to  instruct  their  children, 
and  the  obligation  of  children  to  obey  their  parents.  It  in- 
vests the  free  agency  of  man  with  right  to  pursue  with  im- 
punity a  life  polluted  with  every  vice  in  the  catalogue  of 
crime.  If  followed  out  to  its  legitimate  results,  it  would 
revolutionize  the  government  of  God  throughout  his  moral 
universe.  If  followed  out  to  its  legitimate  results,  it  would 
justify  treason  and  rebellion,  and  overturn  every  civil  go- 
vernment on  earth.  Responsibility  no  more  depends  upon 
consent  in  the  infant,  than  creation  does,  for  in  the  nature 
of  things  consent  is  impossible.  He  is  created  a  rational 
being,  and  therefore  responsibility  is  essentially  involved  in 
his  creation,  and  baptism  formally  recognises  this  responsi- 
bility. Consequently  the  essential  constitution  of  mind 
must  be  revolutionized,  the  import  of  moral  powers  can- 
celled, the  authority  of  moral  law  invalidated,  and  the  su- 
premacy of  God  repudiated,  before  the  appropriateness  and 
importance  of  infant  baptism  can  be  denied. 

33 


386      OBJECTIONS   TO   INFANT   BAPTISM   CONSIDERED. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

OBJECTIONS   OF   A   COLLATERAL   CHARACTER   CONSIDERED 

There  are  several  objections  of  a  collateral  character, 
which  we  will  now  consider. 

1.  "Infants  of  unbelieving  parents  ought  not  to  be  bap- 
tized, because  there  is  none  on  whose  faith  baptism  can  be 
administered." 

First,  The  child  has  a  right  to  baptism,  not  in  view  of 
the  faith  of  the  parents,  but  in  view  of  the  atonement  of 
Christ,  since  the  same  ground  that  entitles  him  to  salvation, 
entitles  him  also  to  baptism. 

Secondly.  The  evangelical  form  of  the  covenant  has  no- 
thing in  it  of  a  temporal  character,  as  in  the  Abrahamic 
form  of  the  covenant.  Under  the  Jewish  dispensation  it 
was  indispensable  that  the  parents  should  be  Jews  in  order 
to  entitle  children  to  circumcision,  because  the  covenant 
partly  referred  to  temporal  blessings,  embraced  in  the  land 
of  Canaan.  In  view  of  specific  temporal,  as  well  as  spiritual 
blessings  promised,  none  but  the  children  of  Jews  were  cir- 
cumcised, while  those  who  became  proselytes  were  circum- 
cised in  view  of  the  spiritual  advantages  alone  connected 
with  the  Jewish  dispensation.  But  under  the  gospel  dis- 
pensation, this  temporal  restriction  or  limitation  is  removed, 
and  consequently,  all  the  children  in  the  world,  and  in  all 
periods  of  time,  are  equally  entitled  to  baptism,  since  no- 
thing but  spiritual  blessings  are  set  forth  by  baptism,  and 
spiritual  blessings  are  unconditionally  obtained  for  all  in- 
fants by  the  atonement  of  Christ. 


INFANTS  OF  UNBELIEVING  PARENTS.       387 


2.  "Both  parents  do  not  sanction  infant  baptism — ought 
the  approving  parent  to  have  the  child  baptized  V 

First.  Abstract  objections  or  sanctions  of  either  or  both 
of  the  parents  no  more  affect  the  child's  right  to  baptism, 
than  they  do  his  right  to  salvation,  and  Christ's  right  to 
the  child  in  baptism.  These  rights  of  the  infant  and  of 
Christ  are  evangelical  in  their  nature,  and  therefore  inde- 
pendent of  natural  relations.  If  the  child  be  denied  right 
to  baptism,  it  must  be  on  the  ground  of  Adam's  offence,  as 
Adam  was  the  federal  representative  of  the  human  race 
under  the  paradisaical  law;  but  the  condemnation  involved 
in  Adam's  transgression,  which  must  otherwise  have  de- 
prived infants  of  salvation  as  well  as  baptism,  has  been  re- 
moved by  the  atonement  of  Christ  in  the  case  of  all  infants, 
and  so  the  title  of  all  infants  to  both  salvation  and  baptism 
has  been  hereby  secured  and  established  for  ever.  That  is, 
the  only  natural  relation  that  could  have  deprived  children 
of  baptism  is  that  which  they  sustain  legally  to  Adam;  but 
this  relation  has  been  graciously  adjusted  by  the  atonement 
of  Christ,  whereby  every  child  sustains  such  a  moral , 
gracious  relation  to  God  through  Christ,  as  involves  in  it  a 
title  to  baptism.  It  is  this  relation  through  Christ,  the 
second  Adam  from  heaven,  that  gives  the  children  of  unbe- 
lieving parents  a  title  to  baptism.  Hence,  the  approval  or 
disapproval  of  one  or  both  of  the  parents  cannot  annul  the 
absolute  and  independent  right  of  the  child  to  baptism. 

Secondly.  The  objection  of  either  or  both  the  parents  to 
the  circumcision  of  their  children,  under  the  Jewish  dis- 
pensation, could  not  in  the  least  respect  affect  their  right  to 
circumcision.  Such  opposition  would  have  incurred  the 
double  guilt  of  rebellion  against  God,  and  great  injury  to 
the  child.  Under  the  Christian  dispensation  therefore,  and 
for  stronger  reasons,  the  opposition  or  sanction  of  either  or 


388      OBJECTIONS   TO   INFANT   BAPTISM   CONSIDERED. 


both  of  the  parents,  in  no  manner  affects  the  real  right  of 
their  children  to  baptism. 

3.  "If  infants  ought  to  be  baptized,  they  ought  also  to 
be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  supper." 

As  the  passover  has  been  succeeded  by  the  Lord's  supper, 
and  circumcision  by  baptism;  and  as  those  who  were  cir- 
cumcised in  infancy  were  not  admitted  to  the  passover  till 
they  were  able  to  understand  its  signification;  so  under  the 
Christian  dispensation,  those  who  are  baptized  in  infancy 
have  no  right  to  the  holy  eucharist  till  they  are  able  to 
understand  its  meaning.  The  testimony  on  this  subject  is 
abundant.  "The  passover,  which  has  now  been  succeeded 
by  the  sacred  supper,  did  not  admit  guests  of  all  descrip- 
tions promiscuously;  but  was  rightly  eaten  only  by  those 
who  were  of  sufficient  age  to  inquire  into  its  signification/' * 
"  The  law  forbids  the  son  to  eat  of  the  sacrifice  before  he 
has  come  to  the  temple,  and  there  presented  an  offering  to 
God."3  "Till  a  child  was  twelve  years  old,  he  was  not  ob- 
liged to  go  to  Jerusalem  at  the  time  of  the  passover."3 
And  so  Poole :  "  Children  at  the  age  of  twelve  years  were 
brought  by  their  parents  to  the  temple;  and  from  that  time 
they  began  to  eat  of  the  passover  and  other  sacrifices." 
Bishop  Patrick  observes,  "  When  children  were  twelve  years 
old,  their  parents  were  bound  to  bring  them  to  the  temple 
at  the  passover,  where  seeing  what  was  done,  they  would  be 
led  to  inquire,  What  mean  ye  by  these  things?''  And  so 
Dr.  Doddridge :  "  The  males  were  not  brought  to  the  temple 
till  they  were  twelve  years  of  age."  And  Dr.  Gill,  a  learned 
Baptist  writer,  bears  testimony:  "According  to  the  maxims 
of  the  Jews,  persons  were  not  obliged  to  the  duties  of  the 
law,  or  subject  to  its  penalties  in  case  of  non-performance, 


1  Calvin's  Inst.  b.  iv.,  c.  16.  sec.  30.  2  Josephus,  lib.  xii.,  c.  4. 

3  Stackhouse,  Hist.  Bible,  book  viii.,  c.  !. 


INFANT    COMMUNION    CONSIDERED.  389 


until  they  were,  a  female,  at  the  age  of  twelve  years  and  one 
day,  and  a  male,  at  the  age  of  thirteen  years  and  one  day."' 
And  so  Luke  says  of  Jesus,  "And  when  he  was  twelve 
years  old,  they  went  up  to  Jerusalem,  after  the  custom  of  the 
feast."  Thus,  as  infants  under  the  Jewish  dispensation 
were  not  entitled  to  participation  in  the  passover,  in  view 
of  their  circumcision,  independently  of  other  considerations, 
so  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  infants  are  not  invested 
with  right  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  supper,  solely  in  view  of 
their  baptism.  Right  to  the  holy  eucharist  is  founded 
upon  faith  and  a  new  creature;  but  baptism,  in  the  case  of 
infants,  is  a  privilege  founded  solely  upon  the  atonement  of 
Christ,  without  faith  and  a  new  nature,  yet  prospectively 
referring  to  the  obligations  of  faith  and  the  duty  of  seek- 
ing a  new  nature.  The  Lord's  supper  is  to  be  taken  by 
those  only  who  can  "discern  the  Lord's  body"  therein  by 
faith,  with  a  grateful  "remembrance"  of  his  atoning  sacri- 
fice, and  an  humble  commemoration  of  his  "death  till  he 
come  again."  With  regard  to  baptism,  no  distinction  of 
age  is  made  in  the  Scriptures;  but  with  respect  to  the  par- 
ticipation of  the  Lord's  supper,  the  distinction  above  is 
clearly  made.  There  is  such  an  essential  difference  between 
these  two  sacraments  in  their  nature  and  design,  that  in  the 
case  of  infants  there  is  no  connection  between  them.  If 
therefore  the  objection  is  based  upon  analog?/,  it  is  over- 
thrown at  once  by  the  considerations,  that  children  under 
the  Jewish  dispensation  did  not  partake  of  the  passover  till 
they  were  twelve  years  old;  that  a  proper  understanding, 
with  faith  and  gratitude,  is  indispensable  to  the  proper  ob- 
servance of  the  holy  eucharist;  and  that,  under  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation,  many  children,  both  male  and  female, 
understand  the  meaning,  and  partake  of  the  sacrament  in" 
the  proper  spirit  before  they  are  twelve  years  of  age. 

4  Comment  on  Luke  ii.  42. 
33* 


390      OBJECTIONS   TO   INFANT   BAPTISM   CONSIDERED. 


In  other  words,  the  right  of  baptized  infants  to  the  Lord's 
supper  is  prospective,  and  is  involved  in  the  gradation  of 
capacity  for  the  enjoyment  of  church  privileges,  and  the 
blessings  of  the  everlasting  covenant.  As  in  civil  society, 
the  constitution  and  laws  guarantee  to  infants  a  certain  and 
adequate  amount  of  privilege,  and  this  amount  is  enlarged 
when  they  arrive  at  a  lawful  age;  so  under  the  covenant  of 
grace,  when  they  arrive  at  a  suitable  age,  and  attain  the 
requisite  capacity  to  "  examine  themselves  and  discern  the 
Lord's  body,"  and  confirm  their  original  right  by  faith  and 
a  corresponding  life,  they  are  admitted  to  the  enjoyment  of 
additional  privileges  in  the  church  of  God,  under  the  cove- 
nant of  grace.  It  is  admitted,  "that  infant  communion  is 
an  ancient  practice  of  the  church."  Of  course  then  infant 
baptism  is  an  ancient  practice  too,  and  must  have  been  prior 
to  the  practice  of  infant  communion,  as  the  Baptists  them- 
selves would  not  permit  any  one  to  commune  who  had  not 
been  baptized.  But  the  practice  of  infant  communion  never 
became  universal — was  not  in  existence  in  the  days  of  Poly- 
carp,  Irenseus,  Justin  Martyr,  and  Origen — and  was  always 
opposed,  till  it  was  finally  put  down  in  the  "West,  where  it 
originated.  Any  one  who  will  examine  church  history,  will 
find  the  time  when  infant  communion  was  commenced,  how 
it  was  opposed  by  the  church,  and  when  it  was  abandoned 
by  the  churches  that  began  it — but  no  such  origin  can  be 
found  for  infant  baptism,  and  it  has  never  been  abandoned. 

4l.  "Infant  baptism  is  a  part  of  popery,  and  is  the  basis 
of  national  churches  and  worldly  establishments.  Dr.  Gill 
called  infant  baptism  the  main  ground  and  pillar  of  popery, 
and  a  great  number  of  Baptists  are  of  the  same  opinion."5 

In  the  first  place,  infant  baptism  was  practised  several 
hundred  years  before  popery  existed.     Secondly,  it  is  prac- 

5  Robinson's  Hist,  of  Baptism,  p.  408. 


INFANT    BAPTISM    NO    TART    OF    POPERY.  391 


tised  in  those  churches  that  are  not  and  never  were  \u\\<  r 
the  dominion  of  the  pope.  Thirdly,  infant  baptism  wafl 
practised  long  before  national  churches  existed  in  the  world 
Fourthly,  civil  law  gives  being  to  national  churches,  and 
national  establishments  depend  altogether  upon  other  causes 
for  their  origin  and  continuance  than  the  one  pretended  in 
this  objection.  Fifthly,  the  union  of  the  church  and  state, 
in  all  instances,  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  spirit  of  compromise. 
Sixthly,  the  abolition  of  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  would 
not  break  up  the  foundation  of  national  churches,  nor  pre- 
vent their  origin  in  future. 

5.  "Infant  baptism  serves  greatly  to  corrupt  the  church.'' 
Facts  refute  the  unjust  allegation.  Go  examine  the  paedo- 
bastist  churches  throughout  Christendom,  and  the  children 
of  paedobaptist  parents,  from  early  age  through  all  periods 
of  subsequent  life,  will  be  found  inferior  in  no  respect  to 
the  children  of  Baptist  parents.  In  every  relation  in  so- 
ciety, personal,  social,  and  civil;  in  every  relation  in  the 
church,  ordinary  or  official;  in  every  period  of  life,  child- 
hood, youth,  manhood,  old  age;  in  every  pursuit  of  honor, 
usefulness,  and  eminence;  and  in  every  commendable  and 
noble  enterprise  that  renders  the  present  age  conspicuous, 
the  paedobaptist  churches  are  in  no  respect  behind  their 
Baptist  brethren.  It  is  a  matter  of  common  observation, 
that  in  powerful  and  extensive  revivals  in  paedobaptist 
churches,  very  few  persons  are  baptized — unless  they  are  of 
Baptist  parentage.  Indeed  it  is  an  obvious  and  most  re- 
markable fact,  that  revivals  generally  embrace  the  youthful 
portions  of  the  church,  and  the  great  majority  of  children 
and  youth  converted  in  revivals  are  those  who  have  been 
baptized  in  infancy — have  these  been  corrupted  by  their 
baptism  ?  Properly  instructed  by  pious  parents,  and  piously 
educated  at  the  altars  of  the  church,  as  soon  as  they  arrive 
at  the  proper  age,  God,  it  seems,  expressive  of  his  approval 


392      OBJECTIONS   TO   INFANT   BAPTISM   CONSIDERED. 


of  their  dedication  to  him  in  early  baptism,  receives  them 
by  faith  into  his  spiritual  church,  as  his  "  faithful  and  elect 
children/'  And  I  may  inquire  just  here,  is  the  same  large 
proportion  of  children  of  Baptist  parents,  at  the  same  early 
age,  in  these  days  brought  into  the  fold  of  Christ  ?  Or  are 
the  great  majority  converted  in  adult  age?  And  even  then, 
are  they  not,  in  large  proportion,  converted  in  the  paedo- 
baptist  churches,  and  received  finally  among  their  old  friends 
and  parents  in  the  Baptist  Church  ?  Are  any  corruptions 
that  may  be  found  in  the  paedobaptist  churches  to  be  traced 
to  infant  baptism  ?  Then  all  corruptions  found  in  the  Bap- 
tist church,  such  as  exclusive  immersion,  restricted  or  close 
communion,  bigotry,  and  any  false  doctrine,  are  to  be  traced 
to  opposition  to  infant  baptism.  The  argument  is  as  good  in 
one  case  as  in  the  other;  indeed,  upon  a  careful  analysis, 
the  argument  will  be  found  to  be  wholly  false  in  the  former 
case,  but  to  a  great  extent  strictly  true  in  the  latter  case. 

It  is  admitted  that  infant  baptism  has  been  abused,  but 
the  fault  lies  in  the  conduct  of  its  advocates,  and  its  oppo- 
nents have  taken  advantage  of  the  abuse.  But  it  is  easy  to 
see  that  there  is  an  essential  difference  between  the  doctrine 
of  baptism  and  the  abuse  of  the  doctrine.  If  the  doctrine 
were  properly  appreciated  and  observed,  incalculable  bless- 
ings would  follow  in  the  conversion  of  thousands  of  our 
young  people,  and  but  few  opponents  would  arise  against  it. 
The  neglect,  indifference,  and  inconsistency  of  its  friends, 
have  done  incalculably  more  to  discredit  it,  than  all  the 
arguments,  sarcasms,  and  opposition  of  its  enemies  have 
accomplished  against  it.  "Whatever  of  abuse  and  corrup- 
tion that  may  arise  from  infant  baptism,  is  not  to  be  ascribed 
to  the  intrinsic  nature  of  the  ordinance,  but  to  the  depravity 
of  man.  The  other  sacrament  has  been  more  abused  than 
infant  baptism,  and  adult  baptism  itself,  in  the  Baptist 
church  as  well  as  elsewhere,  has,  no  doubt,  frequently  been 


INFERENCES.  393 


perverted  to  the  purposes  of  ambition  and  selfishness;  and 
yet  all  this  does  not  destroy  the  general  principle  and  validity 
of  the  sacrament. 

6.  "But  if  all  parents  should  have  their  children  baptized, 
the  whole  world  would  be  introduced  into  the  church." 
True,  and  happy  world,  when  all  the  children  can  be  brought 
up  in  the  church,  under  the  moral  and  holy  obligations  of 
baptism  administered  in  infancy.  There  is  no  better  place 
under  heaven  in  which  to  instruct  the  children  than  the 
church  of  Christ.  But  if  the  objection  presupposes  that 
all  persons  baptized  in  infancy  have  a  right  to  association 
with  the  church,  and  are  recognised  as  having  this  right  in 
subsequent  life,  notwithstanding  the  rebellion  of  subsequent 
life,  and  the  violation  of  the  obligations  contained  in  infant 
baptism,  it  proceeds  upon  false  premises.  This  right  may 
be  forfeited  by  subsequent  actual  transgression,  and  hence 
none  who  were  baptized  in  infancy  are  admitted  into  the 
church  in  adult  age,  unless  they  give  proof  that  they  have 
continued  or  recovered  their  original  title  by  repentance, 
faith,  and  good  works. 

7.  "  If  infants  are  members  of  the  church  by  birth,  and  are 
not  baptized,  they  forfeit  their  membership;  and  hence,  on 
the  paedobaptist  principle,  all  unbaptized  children  are  ex- 
cluded from  the  church  of  God  and  therefore  lost." 

It  is  not  maintained  that  infants  are  members  of  the 
spiritual  church  "by  faith,"  but  by  virtue  of  the  vicarious 
death  of  Christ,  and  this  membership  cannot  be  forfeited  by 
the  neglect  of  baptism  in  their  case.  Baptism  recognises 
this  right  as  already  existing,  and  the  right  still  exists 
though  they  remain  unbaptized,  and  consequently,  dying  in 
infancy,  they  are  not  "  lost."  The  neglect  of  their  baptism 
on  the  part  of  parents  does  not  dissolve  their  connection  with 
Christ's  atonement,  and  association  with  Christ's  spiritual 
church.     It  is  true,  if  they  are  not  baptized,  they  do  forfeit 


394      OBJECTIONS    TO   INFANT   BAPTISM   CONSIDERED. 


their  membership  in  Christ's  visible  church,  and  their  right 
to  external  church  privileges.  So  the  uncircumcised  infant 
Jew,  by  the  command  of  God  "should  be  cut  off  from  his 
people"  that  is,  "cut  off"  from  the  external,  visible  church 
— forfeit  right  to  participate  in  the  passover  and  other  cere- 
monial exercises  of  the  Jewish  church;  but  dying  in  in- 
fancy he  was  not  thereby  lost.  The  child  of  David  died 
before  he  was  eight  days  old,  and  therefore  before  he  was 
circumcised,  and  yet  he  was  not  lost,  for  David,  in  his  grief 
and  fasting,  was  comforted  with  the  belief,  that  he  "should 
go  to  him.,,  The  penitent  thief  on  the  cross  was  saved, 
though  he  was  never  baptized,  and  was  never  associated  with 
Christ's  visible  church.  If  the  objection  be  admitted,  every 
unbaptized  believer  must  be  lost.  The  objection  proceeds 
upon  the  ground  that  baptism  is  saving  in  its  nature,  or  in- 
dispensable to  salvation.  This  is  the  old  Romish  heresy  of 
baptismal  regeneration. 

8.  "  If  children  of  Christian  parents  are  born  members  of 
the  church,  they  have  no  need  of  baptism — they  belong  to 
the  church  without  it,  and  it  becomes  a  work  of  supereroga- 
tion." 

In  the  first  place,  because  children  are  born  members  of 
the  church,  is  the  very  reason  why  they  have  a  right  to  bap- 
tism. The  objection  admits  the  very  ground  on  which  in- 
fants are  entitled  to  baptism.  The  argument,  if  admitted, 
and  applied  to  the  case  of  adult  believers,  would  render 
their  baptism  needless,  or  as  "  a  work  of  supererogation." 
"If  adult  believers  are  born  members  of  the  church,  they 
have  no  need  of  baptism,  they  belong  to  the  church  without 
it,  and  it  becomes  a  work  of  supererogation."  Now  "he 
that  believcth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  is  bom  of  God,"  and 
is  at  once  united  with  the  spiritual  church;  and  because  he 
is  thus  born  a  member  of  the  church,  he  is  entitled  to  bap- 
tism.    But  if  because  the  infant  "belongs  to  the  church 


INFERENCES.  395 


without"  baptism,  there  is  "no  need"  of  baptism  in  his  case, 
so  because  the  adult  believer  "belongs  to  the  church  with- 
out" baptism,  there  is  "no  need"  of  baptism  in  his  case 
also — a  conclusion  that  excludes  baptism  from  the  Christian 
dispensation  altogether. 

Secondly,  baptism  does  not  constitute,  but  recognises  and 
certifies  a  right  already  existing :  in  the  case  of  the  infant, 
it  sacramentally  certifies  a  right,  already  existing,  to  all  the 
blessings  of  the  everlasting  covenant ;  and  in  the  case  of  the 
adult  believer,  it  sacramentally  certifies  the  same  thing. 

In  closing  the  consideration  of  the  most  prominent  and 
important  objections  ordinarily  urged  against  infant  bap- 
tism, we  are  led  to  the  following  inferences. 

1.  Persons  baptized  in  infancy  ought  not  to  be  rebaptized 
in  subsequent  life.  Fearful  parents  sometimes  say,  "That 
in  view  of  scruples  that  may  arise  in  the  minds  of  their 
children  in  adult  age,  they  think  it  best  to  omit  baptism  in 
infancy,  and  leave  the  whole  subject  to  the  management  of 
the  children  in  subsequent  life."  "We  say,  first,  to  the  pa- 
rents— If  you  do  your  whole  duty  in  properly  instructing  the 
children,  they  will  never  be  embarrassed  respecting  their 
infant  baptism.  The  scrupulous  fear  that  they  will  not 
sanction  their  baptism,  and  continue  their  rights  set  forth  in 
baptism,  is  not  a  sufficient  ground  for  the  neglect  of  your 
duty,  and  withholding  from  them  their  right  in  this  matter — 
especially,  too,  since  hereby  you  neglect  a  duty  you  owe  to 
Christ  and  his  church.  We  reply,  secondly,  to  those  who 
have  been  baptized  in  infancy,  and  are  now  dissatisfied  with 
their  baptism — If  you  will  not  sanction  your  infant  bap- 
tism, and  acknowledge  its  solemn  obligations,  then  you 
must  set  it  aside;  and  by  so  doing  you  incur  a  fearful 
responsibility,  for  you  venture  to  trifle  with  one  of  the  sacred 
institutions  of  Christianity  in  its  application  to  infants; 
and  hence  incurring  as  you  do  such  fearful  danger,  paedo- 


>96      OBJECTIONS    TO    INFANT    BAPTISM    CONSIDERED, 


baptist  ministers  are  not  willing  to  be  involved  with  you  in 
the  matter,  and  so  you  must  have  recourse  to  ministers  of  a 
different  belief  on  the  subject,  if  you  must  obtain  rebaptism. 
Baptism  is  the  sensible,  formal  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace 
in  all  its  parts,  and  has  as  much  a  federal  import  on  the 
part  of  God  as  it  has  on  the  part  of  man.  Thus,  the  cove- 
nant of  grace  provides,  that  sins  committed  after  justifica- 
tion, whether  in  the  case  of  infant  or  adult  justification,  shall, 
upon  the  exercise  of  repentance  and  faith,  be  forgiven;  and 
baptism  is  a  seal  of  this  promise  or  feature  of  the  covenant. 
Hence  there  is  no  necessity  of  rebaptism  in  the  case  of  a 
person  baptized  in  infancy  or  in  adult  age. 

2.  The  impropriety  of  excluding  the  following  persons 
from  the  Lord's  sapper: — First,  the  adult  believer,  who  was 
baptized  in  infancy,  and  sanctions  his  baptism  as  valid  and 
sufficient,  and  continues  or  recovers  his  original  title  by 
justifying  faith  and  obedience.  Secondly,  the  adult  believer 
who  was  not  baptized  in  infancy,  but  in  adult  age.  Thirdly, 
all  persons  who  give  satisfactory  evidence  that  they  are  the 
children  of  God,  though  there  has  been  no  opportunity  to 
attend  to  baptism  in  their  cases.  The  mode  of  baptism  in 
no  respect  enters  into  the  question  of  right  or  qualification 
in  the  premises. 


PART  V. 


benefits  0f  Infant  gajfism,  anfo  %  Imitation  of 
Cfeilton  in  gajtism  a  Sflltmn  gttfy 


CHAPTER  I. 

BENEFITS   OF   INFANT   BAPTISM. 

I  cannot  close  these  remarks  without  mentioning  some 
of  the  benefits  of  infant  baptism.  The  question  is  often 
proposed  by  the  Baptists,  "What  benefit,  what  benefit  in 
infant  baptism?  What  good  is  derived  by  unconscious 
babes  in  baptism?" 

1.  It  witnesses  to  the  world  that  the  child  has  a  title  to 
salvation,  and  God's  gracious  dealings  "are  declared  among 
the  people." 

2.  It  sets  forth  in  a  solemn  and  impressive  manner  the 
fact  that  infants  are  affected  by  the  fall  of  Adam,  and  em- 
braced in  the  salvation  of  Christ.  It  may  be  replied  here, 
"that  infants  will  be  saved  without  baptism."  True,  that 
will  be  the  good  fortune  of  all  that  die  in  infancy,  notwith- 
standing the  neglect  of  parents,  since  God  has  not  made 
their  salvation  in  any  respect,  dying  in  infancy,  to  depend 
on  the  care  or  neglect  of  man  toward  them,  but  on  the 
meritorious  sacrifice  of  Christ.  So  the  Jewish  infant  would 
have  been  saved,  had  the  parents  omitted  circumcision — yet 
the  child  would  have  been  "cut  off  from  the  congregation 
of  the  Lord"  in  a  civil  and  ecclesiastical  sense.     It  is  not  so 

34=  397 


898  BENEFITS    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM. 


much  the  child,  dying  in  infancy,  that  is  injured  by  -with- 
holding baptism,  as  it  is  God,  whose  title  to  that  child  had 
not  been  formally  acknowledged;  and  the  child  living-, 
whose  title  according  to  the  everlasting  covenant,  had  not 
been  set  forth  to  the  world,  in  view  of  his  living  and  arriv- 
ing at  responsible  age.  Because  the  child  dying  in  in- 
fancy is  saved,  is  no  vindication  or  excuse  for  omitting  bap- 
tism. Thus,  though  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  will  be  saved 
without  baptism,  baptism  sets  forth  the  fact,  that  while  they 
are  affected  by  the  fall  of  Adam,  they  are  embraced  in  the 
salvation  of  Christ,  and  living,  and  proving  faithful,  are 
entitled  to  the  blessings  of  that  salvation. 

3,  They  are  capable  of  receiving  a  blessing  at  the  hands 
of  Christ ;  for  "  he  laid  his  hands  on  them  and  blessed  them," 
though  they  did  not  understand  what  Christ  meant  when  he 
put  his  hands  upon  them.  And  surely  they  are  capable  of 
receiving  some  benefit  from  the  ordinance  of  Christ.  The 
covenant  of  grace  is  a  deed  of  gift,  signed  by  the  blood  of 
Christ,  and  the  New  Testament  may  be  considered  as  his 
last  will  and  testament.  Would  a  generous  father  omit  the 
names  of  his  children  in  a  deed  or  will  simply  because  they 
were  unconscious  of  its  meaning  ?  What  good  is  derived  by 
unconscious  babes  from  the  death  of  Christ?  "Why,  the 
greatest  good  in  the  hands  of  God,  namely,  "the  kingdom 
of  heaven."  And  shall  not  baptism,  an  ordinance  of  Christ, 
convey  to  the  child  some  of  the  benefit  of  his  sacrificial 
death  ?  What  harm  is  inflicted  ?  What  spiritual  benefit  is 
withheld  by  it  ?  What  obstacle  to  early  piety,  or  barrier  to 
an  exemplary  life,  is  placed  in  the  way  ?  None  whatever. 
Then  why  all  this  opposition  to  infant  baptism?  No  harm 
ensues,  and  an  ordinance  that  sets  forth  the  title  of  the  in- 
fant to  the  greatest  good,  must  be  connected  with  important 
.spiritual  benefits  in  its  administration. 

If  any  benefit  accrues  to  the  adult  in  baptism,  surely  some 


BENEFITS    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  399 


benefit  must  accrue  to  the  infant  in  baptism,  who  has  equal 
right  with  the  adult  to  baptism :  benefits  therefore  of  the 
providence  of  God,  of  the  grace  of  Christ,  and  of  the  opera- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit,  must  ensue  in  some  sense  in  the 
case  of  infant  baptism ;  and  if  in  any  sense,  it  must  be  a 
subject  of  the  highest  importance.  And  consequently  all 
who  forbid  the  little  child  to  receive  the  ordinance,  deserve 
the  rebuke  and  displeasure  of  the  Lord  and  the  disapproba- 
tion of  man,  since  they  place  a  great  barrier  between  the 
child  and  the  church  and  the  special  grace  and  providence 
of  God.  Since  Christ  has  instituted  the  sacraments  as 
channels  of  spiritual  blessings  to  the  believer,  there  is  no 
reason  why  baptism  may  not  be  a  channel  of  some  spiritual 
blessing  to  the  infant  without  faith.  Baptism,  whether  in 
case  of  infants  or  adults,  is  not  a  mere  form  of  profession, 
recognition,  and  initiation,  destitute  of  all  blessings,  spirit- 
ual, moral,  social,  and  providential;  nor  does  it  derive  all 
its  excellence  simply  because  it  is  commanded.  JSo  rite,  Jew- 
ish or  Christian,  was  ever  enjoined  by  command  without 
some  blessing  intended,  certain  privileges  guaranteed,  and 
effects  accompanying  and  following  corresponding  to  the 
rite :  and  such  is  the  essential  character  and  design  of  bap- 
tism. If  no  privileges,  no  good  effects  be  connected  with 
baptism,  then  baptism  is  a  useless  ceremony;  if  any  spiritual 
benefits  are  connected  with  baptism,  then  the  infant  has  as 
good  a  right  to  them  without  faith  as  the  adult  has  by  faith. 
Let  it  be  carefully  observed,  however,  that  baptism  is 
neither  regenerating  nor  saving.  As  under  the  Jewish  dis- 
pensation neither  the  covenant,  nor  its  seal,  nor  its  promises, 
nor  its  services  could  save  the  Jew,  without  personal  faith; 
so  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  neither  the  covenant, 
nor  its  sacraments,  nor  its  promises,  nor  its  services  can 
save  the  baptized  infant  in  subsequent  life,  without  personal 


400  BENEFITS    OF   INFANT    BAPTISM. 


faith.  Indeed,  the  whole  system  of  covenants,  seals,  aci 
promises  is  absolutely  null  without  faith. 

4.  Infant  baptism  is  as  profitable  as  circumcision  was  under 
the  Jewish  dispensation.  "For  circumcision  verily  profit- 
eth, if  thou  keep  the  law — for  every  man  that  is  circum- 
cised is  a  debtor  to  the  whole  law."  Circumcision  was 
profitable  to  the  Jew,  if  in  subsequent  life  he  kept  the  law 
— if  in  subsequent  life  he  discharged  the  obligation  imposed 
upon  him  in  circumcision  in  infancy.  So  baptism  profiteth, 
if  the  infant  in  subsequent  life  keep  the  whole  law,  moral 
and  evangelical,  that  is,  discharge  all  the  obligations  im- 
posed under  the  gospel.  In  a  word,  baptism  is  as  profitable 
to  the  infant  who  discharges  in  subsequent  life  all  the  obliga- 
tions imposed  upon  him  in  baptism,  as  circumcision  was 
profitable  to  the  infant  Jew  who  in  subsequent  life  kept 
the  whole  law,  moral,  ceremonial,  and  civil.  The  profit  of 
circumcision  was  in  keeping  the  law,  and  so  extended  to 
subsequent  life;  the  profit  of  baptism  is  in  keeping  the  law 
of  the  gospel,  and  so  extends  to  subsequent  life:  hence, 
there  is  as  much  profit  in  infant  baptism  as  there  was  in 
infant  circumcision.  The  former  cannot  be  denied  without 
denying  the  latter.  The  argument  of  the  Baptists  may 
be  thus  stated  :  "  Circumcision  verily  profiteth,  if  thou  keep 
the  law:  but  infants  cannot  keep  the  law;  therefore  their 
circumcision  must  be  unprofitable."  This  is  rendering  a 
positive  institution  of  God  an  absolute  nullity,  which  is  a 
reflection  upon  infinite  wisdom.  But  circumcision  is  profita- 
ble— and  the  argument  of  the  Baptists  is  a  mere  sophism; 
and  so  the  same  argument  against  infant  baptism  is  a  mere 
sophism. 

The  Apostle  Paul  has  stated  a  case  in  which  baptism  is 
unprofitable:  "But  if  thou  be  a  breaker  of  the  law,  thy 
circumcision  is  made  uncircumcision."  That  is,  circum- 
cision was  connected  with  no  good  or  profit  to  him  who 


BENEFITS    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  401 


failed  to  keep  the  law:  so  baptism  is  connected  with  no 
profit  to  him,  whether  infant  or  adult,  who  does  not  keep 
the  law  of  the  gospel.  In  this  case,  the  question,  What 
good  ?  may  be  properly  proposed,  and  the  answer  is,  None 
at  all.  That  is,  if  the  infant  fail  to  repent,  believe,  and 
obey  the  gospel  in  subsequent  life,  his  baptism  is  unprofit- 
able. The  error  of  the  Baptists  is,  the  prospective  profit  of 
infant  baptism  is  confounded  with  some  supposed  present 
good.  The  future  profit  of  infant  baptism  is  left  out  of  the 
question,  and  so  the  premises  that  refer  only  to  the  present 
fall  to  the  ground.  But  there  are  certain  present  benefits 
connected  with  infant  baptism,  which  we  shall  set  forth  at 
the  proper  place.  We  will  only  add  here,  with  reference  to 
the  benefit  of  infant  baptism,  the  language  of  Paul  in  reply 
to  certain  cavillers  of  circumcision  in  his  day:  u  What 
profit  is  there  of  circumcision?  Much  EVERY  "WAY;  but 
what  if  some  [who  had  been  circumcised  in  their  childhood] 
did  not  [afterward]  believe?  Shall  their  unbelief  make  the 
faith  of  God  without  effect?" — cause  God  to  fail  to  keep  his 
promise  with  those  that  believe?  "God  forbid;  yet  let 
God  be  true,  but  every  man  a  liar — for  circumcision  vcrihj 
profiteth,  if  thou  keep  the  laic :  but  if  thou  be  a  breaker  of 
the  law,  thy  circumcision  is  made  uncircunicision." 

5.  Infant  baptism  is  as  profitable  as  adult  baptism.  Bap- 
tism is  productive  of  no  good  to  the  adult  unless  he  receive 
it  with  faith;  it  is  faith,  and  faith  only,  in  the  adult,  that 
derives  any  benefit  from  baptism.  That  some  benefit,  we  re- 
peat, is  connected  with  infant  baptism  we  have  no  doubt, 
because  every  ordinance  of  God  properly  administered  must 
be  connected  with  some  spiritual  blessing;  but  whatever 
this  spiritual  blessing  is,  we  are  assured  it  is  not  regenera- 
tion, any  more  in  the  case  of  infant  baptism  than  it  is  in 
adult  baptism.  The  adult  believer  in  baptism  receives  the 
blessing,  or  "  answer  of  a  good  conscience,"  and  nothing  ad- 
34* 


402  BENEFITS    OE    INFANT    BAPTISM. 


ditional  only  in  proportion  as  he  subsequently  discharges 
the  conditions  implied  in  baptism  :  the  infant,  in  the  nature 
of  things,  cannot  receive  at  the  time  this  blessing,  or  answer 
of  a  good  conscience,  but  in  adult  age  he  may  for  himself 
sanction  his  infant  baptism,  and  thus  making  it  his  own, 
enjoy  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience,  and  then,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  adult,  proceed  to  the  discharge  of  all  the  con- 
ditions implied  in  infant  baptism.  There  is  therefore  no 
more  reason  why  baptism  should  be  denied  to  the  infant, 
than  there  is  that  it  should  be  denied  to  the  adult  believer. 
It  recognises  a  state  at  least — that  of  justification — in  both 
cases — in  the  adult  by  faith,  in  the  infant  without  faith ;  it 
imposes  the  same  obligations  in  both  cases;  and  is  a  seal  to 
the  same  blessing  in  both  cases;  and  hence  is  due  to  one  as 
much  as  the  other.  The  infant  does  not  receive  in  baptism, 
or  by  virtue  of  his  baptism,  that  grace  by  which  in  responsi- 
ble age  it  may  "will  and  do  of  G-od's  good  pleasure,"  for 
this  grace  is  a  blessing  which  Christ  has  purchased  by  his 
vicarious  death  for  every  man,  and  is  bestowed  upon  every 
man  independently  of  the  exercise  of  faith,  or  the  reception 
of  baptism,  or  any  other  consideration  in  man — an  uncon- 
ditional blessing  universally  bestowed,  and  is  the  basis  of 
moral  responsibility  in  every  man  under  the  covenant  of 
grace.  All  infants  indiscriminately  receive  this  grace,  by 
which  they  may  be  able  to  repent,  believe,  do  good  works, 
and  perform  all  the  conditions  imposed  under  the  cove- 
nant of  grace  when  they  are  grown  up;  and  the  bestow- 
ment  of  this  grace  is  formally  recognised  in  every  case  of 
infant  baptism.  If  the  infusion  of  this  grace,  which  is 
properly  called  initial  or  preventing  grace,  depended  upon 
baptism,  then  an  indispensable  and  important  spiritual  bless- 
ing would  be  connected  with  infant  baptism;  but  the  gift 
of  this  grace  is  antecedent  to,  and  independent  of  baptism, 
"this  is  the  light  that  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into 


BENEFITS    OF   INFANT    BAPTISM.  403 


the  world"— and  "the  light"  is  "the  life"  of  men.  The 
possession  of  this  grace  places  every  man  under  responsi- 
bility to  perform  the  conditions  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
which  responsibility  is  formally  and  solemnly  recognised  in 
baptism;  and  hence  every  child,  in  the  nature  of  things  pos- 
sessing it,  should  be  baptized.  The  adult  by  faith,  enters 
upon  the  discharge  of  these  conditions,  and  hence  should  be 
baptized,  that  he  may  formally  and  sensibly  set  forth  in  the 
sight  of  God  and  man,  that  he  has  entered  upon  the  dis- 
charge of  his  obligations  up  to  this  time  neglected.  Thus, 
the  adult  who  has  not  yet  believed,  is  under  obligation  to 
believe,  and  then  to  be  baptized :  no  one  will  deny  this : 
consequently,  every  adult  who  has  neither  believed  nor  been 
baptized,  has  up  to  this  moment  neglected  both  duties — the 
antecedent  one  of  faith,  and  the  subsequent  one  of  baptism. 
By  actual  sin  the  adult  forfeits  the  justification  which  he 
possessed  in  infancy,  and  faith  is  indispensable  now  to  the 
recovery  of  justification;  and  hence,  in  the  case  of  the  adult, 
faith  should  precede  baptism.  When  in  a  state  of  uncon- 
ditional justification  in  infancy,  he  should  have  been  bap- 
tized— it  was  omitted — subsequently  by  actual  sin  he  for- 
feited this  state  of  justification — he  must  now  recover  this 
state  before  he  is  entitled  to  baptism — this  he  does  by  faith 
— and  hence  faith  in  the  adult  not  baptized  in  infancy  should 
precede  baptism.  But  the  infant  is  already  in  a  state  of 
justification,  and  hence  the  antecedence  of  faith  is  not  appli- 
cable in  his  case :  baptism  is  a  positive  formal  recognition 
of  his  present  justification  and  future  responsibility,  should 
he  live.  In  other  words,  none  will  deny,  that  baptism  is  a 
formal  recognition  in  the  adult  believer  of  his  present  justifi- 
cation and  responsibility  during  life.  But  the  adult  was  as 
much  under  responsibility  before  he  believed  as  he  was 
after  he  believed — and  hence,  if  infant  baptism  be  struck 
out  of  the  evangelical  system,  there  is  no  formal  recognition 


404  BENEFITS   OF   INFANT   BAPTISM. 


of  responsibility  from  infancy  up  to  the  time  of  faith.  On 
the  part  of  man,  therefore,  baptism  is  a  federal  act,  that  ex- 
tends through  all  life,  and  hence  it  should  be  administered 
in  infancy.  On  the  part  of  G-od,  it  signifies  his  faithfulness 
in  bestowing  initial  grace  upon  all  children ;  and  secondly, 
his  promise  to  bestow  additional  and  saving  grace  subse- 
quently, in  every  case  of  repentance  and  faith:  "for  the 
promise  is  unto  you,  and  to  your  children." 

6.  Baptism  invests  the  infant  with  a  right  to  all  the 
privileges  of  the  church  and  blessings  of  the  atonement, 
should  he  sanction  it  in  subsequent  life  by  faith  and  obe- 
dience. 

It  is  often  objected,  "that  the  child  will  derive  no  benefit 
from  baptism  when  he  is  grown."  On  the  same  ground, 
because  the  adult  will  not  improve  his  original  title  to  salva- 
tion which  he  had  in  infancy,  he  ought  not  to  have  been 
saved  had  he  died  in  infancy.  The  benefit,  in  a  great 
measure,  depends  on  the  use  which  the  adult  makes  of  his 
infant  baptism.  Now  every  properly  instructed  adult, 
whether  pardoned  or  unpardoned,  believes  that  he  was  in  a 
state  of  salvation  while  in  infancy,  and  that  consequently, 
had  he  died  in  infancy,  he  would  have  been  saved.  A  bene- 
fit he  derives  from  his  original  title  is  the  impulse  given  to 
make  his  salvation  sure.  In  a  similar  manner  he  confirms 
his  title  to  infant  baptism.  While  he  feels  that  he  had  a 
title  to  salvation  in  infancy,  he  feels  also,  on  the  same 
ground,  that  he  had  as  good  a  title  to  the  outward  sign  and 
seal  of  that  salvation :  both  of  ichich  he  now  confirms  by 
faith.  Thus,  the  adult  believer  baptized  in  infancy,  pre- 
sents himself  to  the  church,  and  justly  claims  membership 
and  the  enjo}*ment  of  all  the  means  of  grace  connected  with 
the  church.  This  benefit  of  infant  baptism  may  be  set  forth 
in  the  following  manner. 

The  infant  obtains  from  his  baptism  as  much  benefit  as 


BENEFITS    OF   INFANT    BAPTISM.  405 


the  freeborn  child  does  from  the  civil  constitution.  If  the 
freeborn  child  should  die,  still  the  conditions  of  his  free- 
dom were  such  as  would  have  secured  him  the  blessings  of 
freedom  had  he  lived.  So  the  initiatory  rite  of  baptism 
sets  forth  the  title  of  the  infant  to  all  the  blessings  of  salva- 
tion, should  he  live  to  enjoy  them.  As  the  freeborn  child 
can  lay  claim,  upon  obedience  to  the  civil  compact,  to  all 
the  blessings  of  freedom,  so  the  child  baptized  in  infancy 
can,  in  adult  years,  upon  faith  and  obedience,  lay  claim  to 
all  the  eternal  blessings  of  the  church  of  Christ,  sealed  and 
ratified  unto  him  in  infancy.  Repeated  baptism,  in  adult 
age,  cannot  strengthen  this  claim,  and  hence  it  may  be 
dispensed  with  in  every  case. 

7.  It  distinguishes  the  church  from  the  world.  How 
interesting,  solemn,  and  impressive  the  administration  of 
this  ordinance  in  infancy  at  the  altar  of  the  sanctuary,  in 
view  of  the  devotional  multitude,  recognising  the  grace  of 
God,  the  sanctity  of  religion,  the  sinfulness  of  man,  and  the 
separateness  and  distinctness  of  the  church  of  Christ !  Never 
was  there  a  more  beautiful  and  impressive  ordinance,  by 
which,  at  a  glance,  the  whole  redeeming  plan  of  mercy  is  set 
forth,  and  the  awful  and  extensive  evil  of  sin  presented.  So 
impressive  is  this  solemn  sacrament  sometimes,  that  unbe- 
lieving parents,  while  dedicating  their  children  to  God  in 
baptism,  are  awakened  to  an  effectual  and  practical  sense  of 
their  alienation,  guilt,  and  danger;  and  believing  parents 
too,  are  excited  to  observe  an  increased  diligence  in  edu- 
cating their  children  for  the  duties  of  life,  and  qualifying  them 
for  the  glories  of  heaven. 

8.  It  imposes  a  salutary  restraint,  through  all  subsequent 
life,  upon  all  who  are  properly  instructed  in  the  nature  and 
design  of  baptism.  Your  children  are  now  with  you  in  the 
spiritual  church  of  Christ :  in  a  few  years,  it  is  most  pro- 
bable, they  will  go  out  of  the  spiritual  church  by  trans* 


406  BENEFITS    OF    INFAXT    BAPTISM. 


gression.  They  need,  therefore,  every  help  to  incline  them 
to  the  service  of  God,  to  acknowledge  his  right  to  them,  his 
care  of  them,  their  obligation  to  him,  and  their  interest  in 
him :  all  of  which  are  most  solemnly  impressed  on  the  mind 
by  the  conditions  of  baptism.  To  neglect  the  baptism  of 
your  children,  therefore,  at  once  cuts  them  off  from  the  influ- 
ences and  incentives  found  in  baptism,  releases  them  in  a 
measure  from  the  obligations  and  restraints  involved  in  the 
sacred  rite,  and  thus  so  far  not  only  promotes  their  de- 
parture from  the  spiritual  church,  but  enhances  the  diffi- 
culty of  their  return,  and  leaves  them  impelled  onward  in 
the  path  of  open  rebellion  and  ruin.  Circumcision  under 
the  Jewish  law  imposed  obligation  to  keep  the  whole  law,  as 
Paul  writes  to  the  Galatians :  u  I  testify  to  every  man  that 
is  circumcised  that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law.  For 
circumcision  verily  projiteth,  if  thou  keep  the  law;  but  if 
thou  be  a  breaker  of  the  law,  thy  circumcision  is  made  un- 
circumcision" — and  baptism  is  substituted  for  circumcision, 
and  implies  the  same  obligations.  Obedience  to  baptismal 
obligations  secures  all  the  blessings  of  the  atonement,  and 
this  obedience  is  imposed  in  infant  baptism,  which  the 
properly  instructed  infant  recognises  and  promises  to  per- 
form in  subsequent  life.  Nor  can  the  violation  of  baptismal 
obligations  any  more  invalidate  the  propriety  of  infant  bap- 
tism, than  the  transgression  of  the  adult  Jew  can  disannul 
the  legality  of  infant  circumcision. 

9.  The  parents  too,  as  already  intimated,  are  stimulated 
more  than  they  would  otherwise  be  to  train  up  their  chil- 
dren for  heaven.  A  sense  of  increased  parental  obligation 
is  constantly  recurring,  and  consequently  more  zealous 
efforts  are  made  in  the  behalf  of  the  children.  Prayer  is 
more  earnest — vigilance  more  constant — solicitude  more 
intense — and  a  sense  of  responsibility  more  solemn.  The 
child,  seeing  the  parents  negligent  in  this  matter,  soon  be- 


BENEFITS   OF   INFANT   BAPTISM.  407 


comes  negligent  too:  not  being  early  taught  his  responsi- 
bility, he  early  feels  more  at  liberty  to  submit  to  the 
impulses  and  propensities  of  an  evil  heart,  and  hence  com- 
mits sin  with  less  restraint.  This  is  the  infallible  result. 
Exceptions,  it  is  true,  there  are;  but  the  general  rule  is  in 
full  force. 

10.  The  relation  between  parent  and  child  is  hereby 
endeared  and  sanctified.  Nature's  voice  is  now  heard  as  it 
would  have  expressed  itself  in  Eden — and  as  it  did  express 
itself  in  the  Jewish  church.  What !  the  parent  stem  in  the 
church,  and  the  beautiful  bud,  so  frail,  so  tender,  so  deli- 
cate, that  the  slightest  frost  may  blight  it,  hanging  exposed 
and  neglected  over  Zion's  walls,  above  a  wilderness  world ! 
The  dam  in  the  fold,  comfortable,  safe,  and  happy,  and  the 
feeble  lamb  out  upon  the  mountains,  without  a  fold  and 
desolate !  The  parents  in  the  church,  and  their  offspring, 
bone  of  their  bone,  and  flesh  of  their  flesh,  a  part  of  them- 
selves, out  of  the  church !  Not  so  in  civil  society.  Chil- 
dren are  born  citizens  of  the  state  in  which  their  parents 
live.  The  connection  is  not  less  powerful  in  grace  than  in 
nature,  nor  association  less  intimate  in  the  church  than  in 
the  world.  Under  what  a  heavy  sense  of  grief  would  the 
Jewish  parents  have  mourned,  had  they  been  embraced  in 
the  church  and  their  children  excluded !  It  should  deeply 
affect  every  parent  in  the  Christian  church,  if  his  children 
are  not  formally  associated  with  him. 

11.  Infant  baptism  is  an  institution  of  God,  and  hence, 
must  have  important  spiritual  benefits  connected  with  it. 
And  the  least  benefit  attending  it  is  the  proper  observance 
of  it.  The  faithful  performance  of  duty,  in  any  case,  is  by 
divine  law  connected  with  reward.  "In  keeping  the  judg- 
ments of  the  Lord,  there  is  great  reward."  God  has  pledged 
himself  to  bless  the  faithfulness  of  parents  in  discharging 
their  parental  obligations.     "For  I  know  him,  (Abraham,) 


408  BENEFITS    OF   INFANT   BAPTISM. 


that  he  will  command  his  children  and  his  household  after 
him,  and  they  shall  keep  the  way  of  the  Lord,  to  do  justice 
and  judgment;  that  the  Lord  may  bring  upon  Abraham 
that  which  he  hath  spoken  of  him."  Gen.  xviii.  19.  And  so 
in  the  case  of  Timothy.  "  When  I  call  to  remembrance  the 
unfeigned  faith  that  is  in  thee,  which  dwelt  first  in  thy 
grandmother  Lois,  and  thy  mother  Eunice,  and  I  am  per- 
suaded that  in  thee  also."  2  Tim.  i.  5.  Abraham,  Lois, 
and  Eunice,  by  faith  entered  into  covenant  with  God,  the 
former  receiving  the  seal  under  the  Jewish,  and  the  two 
latter  receiving  baptism  under  the  Christian  dispensation, 
and  so  dedicated  formally  and  sacramentally  their  children 
to  God  under  the  dispensations  respectively,  and  the  benefit 
in  each  case  is  recorded.  The  language  of  philosophy  and 
wisdom  is,  "  Train  up  a  child  in  the  way  he  should  go,  and 
when  he  is  old  he  will  not  depart  from  it."     Prov.  xxii.  6. 

12.  God's  proprietorship  is  hereby  acknowledged.  His 
right  to  infants  can  be  sacramentally  acknowledged  in  no 
other  way. 

13.  God  seems  to  exercise  a  peculiar  regard  for  such  as 
are  dedicated  to  him  by  baptism  in  infancy.  And  no 
wonder,  since  it  is  the  outward  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace. 
They  are  most  usually  converted  at  an  early  age;  and  in 
many  respects,  they  seem  to  share  most  largely  in  the  bless- 
ings of  the  covenant. 

14.  Infant  baptism  is  a  privilege  vouchsafed  to  parents. 
Why  should  so  many  parents  decline  this  privilege?  Is  it 
not  a  privilege  to  you,  parents,  to  have  your  children  uncon- 
ditionally associated  with  you  in  that  church  of  which  you 
form  a  part?  To  have  them  formally  and  solemnly  em- 
braced with  you  in  the  great  covenant  of  redeeming  mercy, 
and  so  united  with  you  under  the  guardianship  of  the  church 
of  God  ?  To  educate  them  for  heaven  in  the  church  rather 
than  out  of  it?     To  consecrate  them  with  yourselves  at  the 


THE    DUTY    OF   DEDICATING,  ETC.  409 


altar  of  God?  That  you  are  permitted  to  imitate  the  ex- 
ample of  Hannah,  offering  up  her  precious  boy  Samuel  to 
the  service  of  the  sanctuary,  and  of  Joseph  consecrating  the 
infant  Jesus  in  the  temple  of  God?  Are  your  church 
privileges  inferior  to  those  of  Jewish  parents  in  former 
days?  Tell  me,  is  it  not  a  privilege  to  be  permitted  to  call 
God  and  his  church  to  help  you  in  guiding  your  children 
safely  to  heaven  ?  These  are  privileges — privileges  to  pa- 
rents— privileges  to  children — and  how  much  those  baptized 
in  infancy  owe  to  the  church,  to  their  parents,  and  to  the 
faithfulness  of  God,  it  will  be  impossible  properly  to  esti- 
mate before  we  reach  eternity.  It  remains  for  them,  by 
God's  grace,  to  continue  and  confirm  their  title  to  the 
"  great  salvation." 


CHAPTER  n. 


THE   DEDICATION   OF   CHILDREN   IN   BAPTISM  A   SOLEMN 
DUTY. 

The  duty  of  dedicating  children  to  God  in  baptism  is 
founded  upon  fundamental  principles. 

1.  The  right  of  children  to  baptism  is  independent  of 
parental  relation  and  authority,  since  it  is  founded  uncon- 
ditionally upon  the  vicarious  death  of  Christ,  and  they  are 
specifically  included  in  the  promise  or  covenant  of  salvation ; 
and  hence  parents  are  just  as  much  bound  formally  to  re- 
cognise their  right  to  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  as  they  are  to 
train  them  up  according  to  the  conditions  of  the  covenant, 
and  the  commands  of  God  given  with  respect  to  their  moral 
and  religious  education.  Upon  the  same  ground,  the  church 
has  no  right  to  withhold  baptism  from  children.     It  is  a 

35 


410  DEDICATION    OF    CHILDREN    IN    BAPTISM 


parental  duty  to  dedicate  the  child  to  God,  and  baptism 
gives  visibility  to  this  act  of  dedication.  Every  parent  is 
just  as  much  bound  to  dedicate  his  children  to  God  in  bap- 
tism as  he  is  to  dedicate  himself,  for  he  has  no  better  right 
to  baptism  than  his  children  have.  It  is  a  duty  then  pa- 
rents owe  to  their  children. 

2.  It  is  a  duty  parents  owe  to  God.  It  is  the  vicarious 
death  of  Christ  that  gives  the  child  a  right  to  the  blessings 
of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  it  is  the  same  death  that  gives 
Christ  a  right  to  the  child.  It  is  baptism  that  formally 
recognises  these  rights  of  Christ  and  the  child — that  signi- 
fies that  these  rights  exist.  Thus  it  is  a  duty  that  parents 
owe  to  God,  as  well  as  their  children. 

3.  The  very  duties  of  parental  instruction  are  implied  in 
infant  baptism.  No  one  will  deny  that  parental  obligation 
properly  to  train  up  the  children  exists,  and  parents,  in  the 
baptism  of  their  children,  formally  and  solemnly  pledge 
themselves  to  discharge  this  obligation.  This  obligation 
implies  a  godly  life  or  example.  The  parents  are  to  walk 
in  the  same  holy  path  they  would  have  their  children  pur- 
sue. A  godly  example  is  a  silent  monitor,  more  powerful 
than  the  most  affecting  appeals,  or  urgent  entreaties,  or  pru- 
dent counsels.  The  parent  is  under  obligation  to  submit  to 
the  authority  of  God,  in  keeping  all  his  commandments,  not 
only  for  his  own  sake,  but  for  the  sake  of  his  children.  All 
this  is  implied  in  the  expression  with  respect  to  pious  Abra- 
ham: "He  will  command  his  children  and  his  household 
after  him."  This  obligation  implies  also  faithful  and 
earnest  prayer  for  the  children.  Job  prayed  for  his  chil- 
dren. Prayer  is  intercourse  with  God,  and  it  strengthens 
all  the  social  principles,  and  enlivens  in  the  highest  degree 
every  parental  emotion  and  impulse,  and  so  qualifies  the 
parent  the  better  to  train  up  the  children  in  the  fear  of  God. 
Parental  prayer  avails  with  God,  and  the  children  are  b^sssd 


A    SOLEMN   DUTY.  411 


in  a  thousand  ways  by  the  answers  he  gives.  Frequent  and 
solemn  prayer  sets  the  example,  and  excites  the  impulse,  in 
che  case  of  the  children.  But  parental  example  and  prayer 
are  not  enough.  Faithful  religious  instruction  is  required. 
Consider  some  of  the  results  of  pious  parental  instruction. 
It  insensibly  blends  intellectual  and  moral  instruction  in  the 
same  process.  This  it  does  at  an  age  when  moral  impres- 
sions are  easily  made  upon  every  mental  faculty,  and  moral 
principles  are  incorporated  in  the  very  texture  of  mind. 
Now  the  conscience  possesses  the  tenderest  sensibility,  the 
will  is  submissive,  the  heart  is  confiding — there  is  no  pre- 
judice to  combat — no  pride  of  opinion  to  encounter — no 
artful  sophistry  to  refute — no  deep-laid  policy  to  oppose — 
the  evil  propensities  are  yet  dormant — evil  passions  are  as 
yet  asleep — the  cares  of  the  world,  its  business,  its  excite- 
ments, its  pleasures,  its  ambition,  its  examples,  make  as  yet 
no  appeal  to  the  attention — and  released  from  the  responsi- 
bilities and  solicitudes  of  life,  the  young  and  opening  mind 
may  press  its  whole  energies  upon  moral  subjects.  Be- 
sides, childhood  is  the  best  time  in  which  to  inculcate  the 
principles  of  moral  responsibility.  The  foundation  of  moral 
character  is  now  laid  in  the  a  priori  faculties  of  mind. 
Moral  being,  moral  life,  moral  history,  now  begin  in  their 
primary  elements — doctrines,  conduct,  enterprises,  tastes, 
pleasures,  associations,  originate  in  the  moral  character  now 
formed.  The  mind  now  receives  the  elements  of  its  subse- 
quent indefinite  expansion,  as  a  citizen  of  time,  and  a  candi- 
date for  eternity.  How  he  is  to  think,  to  act,  to  feel,  as  a 
subject  of  G-od's  moral  government — what  are  to  be  his 
moral  sensibilities  and  tendencies — what  are  to  be  the  ele- 
ments of  his  whole  moral  being — is  now  to  be  determined. 
A  more  solemn  or  important  duty  cannot  be  conceived  of 
than  this  which  is  devolved  upon  parents.  The  elements 
of  future  strength  are  wrapped  "D  in  the  organized  elements 


112  DEDICATION    OF    CHILDREN    IN    BAPTISM 


contained  within  the  limits  of  the  unsightly  coil  of  the 
acorn,  and  in  their  early  evolution  a  child  may  snap  the 
tender  twig )  hut  in  the  maturity  of  their  development,  the 
oak  spreads  its  strong  branches  toward  the  heavens,  and 
survives  the  shock  of  a  thousand  storms.  The  streamlet 
down  the  slope  of  the  mountain  may  be  diverted  in  its 
early  progress  from  its  original  course  by  a  tiny  obstructing 
pebble,  and  so  be  lost  in  the  depths  of  some  murky,  doleful 
cavern;  but  had  it  flowed  on  in  the  proper  direction,  it 
would  have  received  the  aid  of  countless  streams  in  its  pro- 
gress, and  rolled  its  congregated  waters  into  the  distant 
ocean — a  noble  river,  the  boundary  of  empires,  and  bearing 
upon  its  broad,  deep  bosom  the  navies  and  the  commerce 
of  the  world.  One  of  the  results  of  pious  parental  instruc- 
tion is,  the  mind  at  an  early  age  is  brought  under  the  con- 
victing and  converting  grace  of  God.  Children  so  instructed 
know  more  of  the  precepts,  invitations,  promises,  doctrines, 
warnings,  and  threatenings  of  the  Bible,  and  hence  have  a 
livelier  sense  of  sin  and  clearer  views  of  pardon  than  many 
old  persons  who  never  enjoyed  the  privilege.  The  exalted 
piety  and  distinguished  usefulness  of  Samuel,  Timothy, 
Augustine,  Hooker,  "Wesley,  Dwight,  Gardener,  Doddridge, 
and  a  page  of  the  noblest  names  among  men,  are  to  be 
ascribed  to  the  early  education  of  pious  parents.  From  the 
same  source  the  state  has  been  furnished  with  some  of  its 
most  illustrious  champions  and  strongest  pillars;  the  halls 
of  learning,  legislation,  and  jurisprudence,  have  been 
adorned  with  some  of  their  brightest  ornaments ;  and  the  no 
less  honorable  and  respectable  pursuits  and  toils  of  daily  life 
are  dignified  with  industry,  morality,  and  integrity.  The 
sanctions  of  religion  alone  can  give  stability  to  the  institu- 
tions of  a  nation,  and  establish  a  national  morality,  and  the 
purest  national  character.  The  whole  solid  framework  of 
our  government — our  extensive  facilities  of  trade  and  com- 


A    SOLEMN    DUTY.  413 


merce — skill  and  success  in  agriculture — our  free  and  noble 
institutions — our  press — our  growing  population — our  liberty 
— our  dignity — our  prosperity — and  our  endless  prospects — 
are  the  fruits  of  the  Christian  religion.  While  civil  legis- 
lators are  enacting  penal  laws,  and  devising  plans  for  prisons 
and  dungeons  and  death,  pious  parents  are  applying  all  their 
energies  to  render  these  civil  arrangements  unnecessary — 
and  not  in  vain,  for  scarcely  any  piously  instructed  in  child- 
hood have  been  condemned  and  disgraced  by  crime.  Parental 
instruction  of  this  nature  is  founded  upon  the  eternal  basis 
of  divine  truth,  and  corresponding  results  will  follow.  Let 
it  not  be  supposed  that  this  law  of  heaven  was  applicable 
only  in  the  Old-Testament  times.  God  has  the  same  regard 
for  children  now,  that  he  had  and  expressed  then — children 
have  the  same  interest  in  the  atonement  now,  that  they  had 
then — they  have  the  same  need  of  instruction  now,  that  they 
had  then — and  parents  are  under  the  same  obligation  now 
to  train  up  their  children  properly,  as  they  were  then.  The 
Psalmist  says,  God  "established  a  testimony  in  Jacob,  and 
appointed  a  law  in  Israel,  which  he  commanded  our  fathers, 
that  they  should  make  them  known  to  their  children,  which 
should  be  born,  who  should  arise  and  declare  them  to  their 
children;  that  they  might  set  their  hope  in  God,  and  not 
forget  the  works  of  God,  but  keep  his  commandments. " 
Ps.  lxxviii.  5-7.  And  so  in  Deut.  vi.  4-7;  xi.  18-21. 
And  so  Paul  exhorts  parents,  that  they  "bring  up  their 
children  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord."  Eph. 
vi.  4.  And  so  the  apostle  bears  testimony  to  pious  train- 
ing in  the  case  of  Timothy:  "But  continue  thou  in  the 
things  which  thou  hast  learned  and  hast  been  assured  of, 
knowing  of  whom  thou  hast  learned  them,  and  that  from  a 
child  thou  hast  known  the  holy  scriptures,  which  are  able 
to  make  thee  wise  unto  salvation,  through  faith,  which  is  in 
Jesus  Christ"  2  Tim.  iii.  14,  15.     Now  all  these  duties, 

35* 


414  DEDICATION    OF    CHILDREN,  ETC. 


namely,  of  a  godly  example,  faithful,  earnest,  and  constant 
prayer,  and  pious  instruction,  are  involved  essentially  in 
parental  relations;  and  parents  solemnly  and  formally  pledge 
themselves  to  discharge  them,  whenever  they  dedicate  their 
children  to  God  in  baptism.  An  illustration  is  found  in  the 
case  of  Hannah  and  Samuel.  She  solemnly  vowed  that  she 
would  dedicate  her  child  to  God.  Her  prayer  was  heard  and 
granted,  and  the  child  of  prayer  and  promise  formally  con- 
secrated to  God,  and  duly  trained,  and  none  under  the  Old- 
Testament  dispensation  was  more  distinguished  than  Samuel 
for  piety  and  usefulness 

4.  God  has  deeply  implanted  in  parental  hearts  a 
strong  affection  for  their  children,  and  the  tenderest  anxiety 
for  their  welfare,  and  these  pure  social  sentiments  they 
solemnly  pledge  to  their  children  in  the  formal  service  of 
baptism.  The  neglect  of  parental  obligation  is  exceedingly 
displeasing  to  God,  of  which  we  have  an  impressive  instance 
recorded  in  the  case  of  Eli :  "  And  the  Lord  said  to  Samuel, 
Behold,  I  will  do  a  thing  in  Israel,  at  which  both  the  ears 
of  every  one  that  heareth  it  shall  tingle.  In  that  day  I  will 
perform  against  Eli  all  things  which  I  have  spoken  concern- 
ing his  house :  when  I  begin,  I  will  also  make  an  end.  For 
I  have  told  him  that  I  will  judge  his  house  for  ever,  for  the 
iniquity  which  he  hnoweth;  because  his  sons  made  them- 
selves vile,  and  he  restrained  them  not.  And  therefore  I 
have  sworn  unto  the  house  of  Eli,  that  the  iniquity  of  Eli's 
house  shall  not  be  purged  with  sacrifice  nor  offering  for 
ever."  Let  parents  then  remember  that  a  most  solemn 
trust  is  committed  to  them,  involving  a  most  solemn  obliga- 
tion, and  this  obligation  is  formally  and  solemnly  acknow- 
ledged in  the  baptism  of  their  children,  and  is  to  be  dis- 
charged in  the  performance  of  the  corresponding  duties 


CONCLUSION.  415 


CHAPTER  III. 

CONCLUSION. 

A  few  remarks  shall  conclude  this  treatise, 

1.  The  ordinance  of  "baptism  is  to  be  explained  to  the 
children  by  the  parents.  Parents  are  under  obligation  to 
do  this.  "  These  words  which  I  command  thee  this  day, 
shall  be  in  thine  heart,,  and  thou  shall  teach  them  diligently 
to  thi/  children,  and  talk  of  them  when  thou  sittest  in  thy 
house,  and  when  thou  walkest  by  the  way,  and  when  thou 
liest  down,  and  when  thou  risest  up."1  "The  fathers  to 
the  children  shall  make  known  thy  truth."3  "He  esta- 
blished a  testimony  in  Jacob,  and  appointed  a  law  in  Israel, 
which  he  commanded  our  fathers  that  they  should  make 
them  known  to  their  children."3  "When  your  children 
ask,  What  mean  you  by  this  service,  then  you  shall  say,  It 
is  the  sacrifice  of  the  Lord's  passover,  who  passed  over  the 
houses  of  the  children  of  Israel  in  Egypt,  when  he  smote 
the  Egyptians,"  &c*  A  neglect  of  these  duties  was  visited 
with  bitter  fruits  upon  the  houses  of  Eli  and  David. 

2.  Much  depends  upon  the  faith  of  the  parents  and  the 
church.  "Only  the  Lord  has  a  delight  in  their  fathers  to 
love  them,  and  he  chose  their  seed  after  them."  "The 
mercy  of  the  Lord  is  from  everlasting  to  everlasting  upon 
them  that  fear  him,  and  his  righteousness  to  children's 
children"    "  The  generation  of  the  upright  shall  be  blessed." 


I  Deut.  vi.  6,  7.  2  Ps.  xxxviii.  19. 

3  Ps.  lxxviii.  5-7.  4  Ex.  xii.  26,  27. 


416  INFANT   BAPTISM. 


Consider  the  faith  of  Hannah  for  Samuel — of  the  nobleman 
for  his  son  at  the  point  of  death — of  the  woman  of  Canaan 
for  her  daughter  vexed  with  a  devil — and  of  Abraham  for 
his  own  family.  If  faith  can  affect  the  spiritual  interests 
of  strangers,  what  may  it  confer  upon  the  offspring !  Under 
the  influence  of  a  strong  and  abiding  faith,  the  children  are 
to  be  trained  up  in  the  "  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord" 
— to  be  often  reminded  of  their  dedication  to  God  in  baptism, 
and  consequent  solemn  responsibilities  and  important  privi- 
leges— and  to  be  encouraged  to  exercise  saving  faith,  with- 
out which  all  forms  and  ceremonies  are  dead  and  powerless. 

3.  The  most  solemn  obligation  is  imposed  upon  parents, 
believing  or  unbelieving,  to  have  their  children  baptized  at 
the  earliest  convenience.  The  children  of  unbelieving,  as 
well  as  believing  parents,  have  an  unconditional  title  to  all 
the  blessings  of  the  everlasting  covenant,  and  Christ  also 
has  a  right  to  them.  These  rights  can  be  formally  acknow- 
ledged in  no  other  way  than  by  baptism.  Nor  can  the 
apprehension  of  parents,  that  their  children  will  not  dis- 
charge their  baptismal  obligations,  release  them  from  attend- 
ing to  this  duty  which  they  owe  to  Christ  and  their  children. 

To  neglect  the  baptism  of  the  children,  therefore,  is  in  a 
very  high  degree  improper,  unwise,  unkind,  and  unjust;  and 
without  question,  under  such  circumstances,  sin  accrues  to 
the  parents,  and  much  disadvantage  and  injury  redound  to 
the  children  in  after  life,  and  perhaps  thereby  to  all  eternity. 
A  fearful  import  attends  the  omission  or  neglect  of  this  duty. 
Safety  only  is  in  the  proper  observance  of  it. 

4.  Finally :  this  sacred  ordinance  should  be  administered 
in  the  church.  The  reasons  for  this  are  many  and  weighty. 
It  greatly  promotes  the  revival  of  the  universal  practice  of 
infant  baptism.  It  increases  the  number  of  attendants  on 
divine  service  on  the  Sabbath-day.  It  suggests  all  the  great 
truths  of  the  gospel — revives  a  sense  of  parental  obligation 


CONCLUSION.  417 


— furnishes  strong  ground  of  appeal  to  the  congregation, 
and  many  impressive  motives  to  evangelical  obedience — and 
excites  a  spirit  of  prayer  for  the  subject  of  baptism,  which 
could  not  be  obtained  in  the  drawing-room  of  the  rich  or 
the  cottage  of  the  poor.  As  Tertullian  says,  "  "We  can  with 
greater  profit  beg  the  divine  grace  upon  the  baptized  person, 
when  there  is  a  number  present  in  the  public  congregation." 
The  church,  from  its  solemn  associations,  is  the  most  suita- 
ble place.  It  is  true,  whole  households  were  baptized  in 
the  days  of  the  apostles,  and  consequently  infants  were  then 
baptized  at  home ;  Nbut  in  the  infancy  of  the  church,  and  in 
view  of  the  itinerant  labors  of  the  apostles,  this  practice  was 
justified — there  were  no  churches  in  the  early  days  of  the 
apostles.  It  is  more  convenient  to  baptize  in  the  church 
than  at  home,  since  many  can  be  baptized  in  the  church  on 
the  same  occasion.  The  design  of  baptism  seems  to  demand 
that  it  he  public,  as  in  baptism  the  subject  is  consecrated  to 
the  service  of  God.  The  baptismal  service  of  our  church 
contemplates  the  administration  of  the  ordinance  in  the 
church.  In  the  direction,  the  terms,  "  the  minister  coming 
to  the  font;"  "dearly  beloved;"  in  the  prayer,  "the  sup- 
plications of  thy  congregation;"  preparatory  to  reading  the 
gospel,  "then  shall  the  people  stand  up;"  all  clearly  show 
that  the  Discipline  designs  that  the  baptism  of  children 
should  be  administered  in  the  church.  This  view  is  further 
sustained  by  the  baptismal  service  of  the  Church  of  England, 
of  which  ours  is  a  modification.  If  from  any  urgent  cause, 
baptism  is  to  be  administered  at  home,  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land has  provided  a  particular  oflke  for  it,  which  directs 
that  the  essential  parts  of  the  sacrament  be  administered 
immediately  in  private,  but  defers  the  other  solemnities  till 
the  child  can  be  brought  into  the  church.  The  office  is 
ordered  to  be  said  at  t7ie  font,  in  the  middle  of  the  morning 
and  evening  prayer.     The  priest  tells  the  godfathers  and 


418  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


godmothers,  that  they  "have  brought  the  child  hither  to  be 
baptized;"  which  would  have  been  absurd  if  it  had  been 
baptized  at  home.  In  the  prayer,  the  priest  says,  "Grant 
that  whosoever  is  here  dedicated  to  thee  by  our  office  and 
ministry;"  which  would  be  absurd  as  before,  if  the  word 
here  did  not  refer  to  the  church.  And  not  until  the  prac- 
tice of  public  baptism  in  the  church  was  occasionally  aban- 
doned for  private  baptism  at  home,  was  the  term  "here" 
omitted  in  our  discipline.  Lastly,  baptism  initiates  into, 
and  associates  with  the  church;  and  consequently,  where  is 
so  suitable  a  place  as  the  church?  And  what  is  more 
rational  and  consistent  than  the  presence  of  the  church,  with 
whom,  by  baptism,  the  child  is  now  united,  and  with  whom 
he  continues,  till  by  actual  transgression  he  forfeits  his 
membership?  Let  the  church  restore  the  privilege,  and 
observe  the  importance,  of  a  general  administration  of  thia 
ordinance  in  the  public  congregation. 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  TEXTS. 


OLD  TESTAMENT. 


Gen.  vi.  13 

xvii.  4,  5. 
xvii.  7.... 
xviii.  19 . 


PAGE 

168 

242 

217 

408 

xlvi.  27-31 291 

Exod.  i.  1 291 

xii.  22 63 

xiv.  22 91 

xxvi.  27 415 

xxix.  4,  7 176 

Lev.  iv.  6 63 

17 63 

viii.  6,  10-12 176 

xiv.  6 54 

7 65 

xvi.14,15 64 

Num.  viii.  7 65 

xvi.  27,32 292 

xviii.  11 291 

Deut.  v.  2,  3 376 

vi.  6,  7 415 

x.  15 250 

xxi.  1,  9 106 

xxv.  9 291 

xxix.  10-12 225 

10-15 384 

11,12 376 


PAGE 

Deut.  xxx.  6 249 

xxxiii.  24 63 

Josh.  iii.  8 95 

15 55,  63 

17 55 

viii.  34,  35 376 

Ruth  iv.  11,  12 292 

1  Sam.  xiv.  27 63 

2  Sam.  vii.  11,  27,  29 290 

xii.  11 291 

2  Kings  iii.  11 53 

v.  10 56 

11 57 

Job  xx.  28 292 

Ps.  xxvi.  6 106 

xxxviii.  19 415 

xl.  8 168 

li.  7 106 

lxviii.23 63 

lxxii.  6 89 

lxxvii.  16 91 

lxxviii.  5-7 413 

Isa.  xiii.  16 292 

xliv.  3 89 

Iii.  15 32,89 

lvi.6,7 237 

lxiii.  L,3 43 

419 


420 


INDEX    OF    SCRIPTURE   TEXTS. 


PAGE 

Jer.  xxx.  20 235 

Ezek.  xxiii.  15 64 

xxxvi.  23 32 

xxxvi.  25,  26 89,93,106 

xxxix.  29., 89 

Dan.  iv.  23,  25,  33 52 


PAGE 

Hosea  vi.  3 89 

Joel  ii.  28,  29 33,  89 

Amos  ix.  11,  12 233 

Zech.  xii.  10 89 

Mai.  iii.  2,  3 46 


NEW  TESTAMENT. 


Matt  ii.  11 288 

iii.  5,  6 93 

11 49,52 

14,15 175 

16 33 

xiv.  30 66 

xvi.  24,  25 204 

xviii.  3 280,282 

6 66 

xix.  14 275 

xxi.  43 234 

xxii.  31,  32 243 

xxiv.  22 39 

xxvi.  23 43 

xxvii.  24 106 

40 34 

xxviii.2 34 

19 19,23,117,259 

Mark  i.  8 49 

10 35 

vii.4 53,  56 

x.  38 64 

xii.  9 234 

Luke  i.  4,  8 116 

37 39 

iii.  16 49 

21 179 

vii.  44 54 

xi.  38 53 

xii.  50 64 

xvi.  24 56 


Luke  xxiv.  47 117 

49 50,116 

John  i.  25 46 

32 50 

iii.  5,  7 20,  38,202 

26 45,  74 

riii.  56 234 

xiii.  26 56 

ActsL  5 50,52,117 

25 117 

iL2,  3 50 

16;  17,18 50,89 

83 50,117 

38 18 

38,39 218,269 

iii.  25 274 

23 

50 

35 

33 

128 

288 

127 

50 

50 

, 89 

93,  125 

, 288 

50 

, 249 

50 


iv.  5.... 

viii.  15, 

31. 


16. 


ix.ll. 

x.6... 

22.. 


44 

45 

47 

xi.  11-13. 

15 

xv.  1-5... 
8 


INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE   TEXTS. 


421 


PAGE 

Acts  xv.  14-17 234 

xvi.  15-33 23 

xviii.  8 23 

xix.  4 18,  174 

xix.  5 23 

xxii.  16 48 

xxiii.  8 39 

xxvi.  22 234 

Rom.  i.  2 234 

iL25 229 

iiLl,  2 238 

iv. 229 

11 218 

iv.  13,14 274 

16,17 243 

v.  18 213,282 

vi.3-11 20,21,22,23,48 

xi 231 

18 231 

xiii.  1,  2 124 

1  Cor.  L  13 23 

vii.  14 285 

x.  1,  2 53,  90,  284 

xi.20 73 

xv.  29 22,23 

Gal.  ii.  3-5 253 

iii.  8;  27 228,  283 

17 228,284 

19 228 

26-29 18,    20,  166 

248,  274,  283 
iv.  28 274 


PAG« 

Gal.  v.  2-4 240 

6 105 

Eph.i.  9 13 

i.  10 285 

i.  13 51 

ii.  14,  16,  19,  20 229 

iii.  3 13 

6 229 

iv.  1-5 21 

Phil.  iii.  2,  3 248 

iv.8 113 

22 289 

Col.  i.  27 14 

ii.12 23,48 

ii.  10-12 248 

1  Tim.  iii.  4,  5, 12 293 

v.  14 293 

vi.  9 66 

2  Tim.  i.  5 408 

Titus  iii.  1 124 

Heb.  vi.  2 56,  202 

ix.10 47,  56 

13 65,106 

xi.  9-10 243 

13-16 243 

19 122 

xii.  24 106 

1  Peter  i.  2 106 

12 51 

Hi.  21 23 

Uohnv.  8 106 

Rev.  xix.  13 43,56 


SO 


GENERAL  INDEX 


Acts  ii.  38,  39,  specific  promise,  263. 

Ainsworth,  70 ;  on  proselyte  baptism,  262. 

Anabaptists,  founders  of  modern  Baptist  church,  349. 

Apo,  86. 

Apostolic  constitutions,  69. 

Aristotle,  40 ;  definition  of  "  house,"  289. 

Assembly  of  divines  at  Westminster,  200. 

Augustine,  22. 

Backus,  a  Baptist  historian,  on  origin  of  the  Baptist  Church  in  England, 
186;  and  in  America,  194-196. 

Baptism,  various  opinions  of,  14 ;  gradual  development  of,  16 ;  deflfi 
tion  of,  19 ;  expressive  of  faith  in  Trinity,  19 ;  adoption  into 
family  of  God,  20 ;  spiritual  union  with  Son,  20  ;  regeneration 
by  Spirit,  20 ;  renunciation  of  the  world,  21 ;  spiritual  union 
among  Christians,  21 ;  hope  of  future  resurrection,  22 ;  doc- 
trine of  original  sin,  22 ;  free  grace,  23 ;  emblematical,  not 
conditional,  21;  obligation,  23,  163;  sin  of  neglect,  23;  pro- 
per administrator  of,  25 ;  form  of,  26  ;  subjects  of,  27 ;  element 
of,  27 ;  mode  of,  27 ;  analogy  between  it  and  circumcision,  249, 
252;  substituted  for  circumcision,  244,  268;  a  seal,  241;  figu- 
rative, 129,  163;  a  federal  act,  163. 

Baptismal  regeneration,  origin  of,  13,  49. 

Baptists,  line  of  succession  of,  197,  198 ;  origin  of  in  England  and 
America,  187-196. 

Baptizo,  33 ;  its  evangelical  sense,  37 ;  classic  Greek   not  standard,  40 ; 
scriptural  proof,  45 ;  new  translation  of,  131. 

Bapto,  43. 

Basil,  68. 

Benedict,  a  Baptist  historian,  on  origin  of  the  Baptist  Church  in  England 

and  America,  187,  188 ;   his  concessions,  197,  347,  348. 

Bible,  translation  of,  68. 

'  423 


424  GENERAL   INDEX. 


Booth,  his  concession,  268  ;  his  unfairness,  139. 
Broaddus,  a  Baptist,  his  concession,  192. 
Brown,  on  infant  baptism,  350. 
Bruis,  Peter  de,  183,  336. 

Calvix,  12,  136;  misrepresented  by  Baptists,  146,  322;  corrected  by 
Dr.  Fuller,  a  Baptist,  153. 

Campbell,  Dr.  George,  39,  40. 

Campbellism,  14,  21,  49,  133,  210. 

Carson,  a  Baptist,  44,  54,  57,  69,  85,  86,  87. 

Cassander,  respecting  Menno,  185. 

Cathari,  343. 

Christ,  baptism  of,  95;  his  baptism  notbindinguponus,  171;  not  John's 
baptism,  174;  nor  Christian  baptism,  174;  character  of,  175; 
not  an  example  for  us,  177,  178,  372. 

Chrysostom,  68,  69. 

Church,  under  same  covenant,  in  all  ages,  227. 

Circumcision,  a  seal,  236 ;  analogy,  257,  371. 

Clark,  on  mode  of  Jailer's  baptism,  (note,)  125. 

Clarke,  Dr.  A.,  misrepresented  by  Baptists,  149;  on  phrase  "kingdom  «f 
God,"  (note,)  281,  282. 

Close  communion,  98,  199,  209. 

Commission,  the  great,  259. 

Covenants,  Abrahamic,  217,  227;  Jewish  or  Mosaic,  217,  225;  Adamic, 
225;  Christian,  227;  covenant  of  grace,  seal  of,  same  under 
all  dispensations,  236;  specifically  embraces  infant  bap- 
tism, 269. 

Coptic  version,  on  Lydia's  baptism,  299. 

Cornelius,  baptism  of,  93 ;  mode  of  his  baptism,  127 ;  design  of  record- 
ing his  baptism,  125. 

Coulon,  70. 

Cyprian,  in  favour  of  infant  baptism,  316. 

Cyril,  of  Jerusalem,  69. 

Doddridge,  on  infant  baptism,  136. 

Donatists,  origin  of,  and  practised  infant  baptism,  344. 

Donnegan,  on  laptizo,  66,  69. 

Dwight,  Dr.,  72. 

Ecclesiastical  govern-ment,  101;   history,  in  favour  of  infant  bap- 
tism, 308. 
Eia  or  en,  84,  85. 
Ek  or  ex,  86. 


GENERAL   INDEX.  425 


English  Scriptures,  on  mode  of  baptism,  30. 
Epictetus,  on  proselyte  baptism,  268. 
Eunuch,  baptism  of,  82,  83,  87. 

Fathers,  on  baptism  in  place  of  circumcision,  252 ;  with  ancient  writers 
in  favour  of  infant  baptism:  Irenaeus,  309;  Justin  Martyr, 
309;  Tertullian,  308-311,  331;  Origen,  313;  Ambrose,  Au- 
gustine, Chrysostom,  Jerome,  Optatus,  Gregory  Nazianzen, 
317 ;  Pelagius,  318,  329 ;  Celestius,  319. 

Fidus,  letter  to,  316. 

Gale,  Dr.,  60,  63 ;  misrepresentation  of  Wall,  145. 

Gases,  70. 

Greek  Church,  practises  trine  immersion  and  sprinkling,  134;  practises 
infant  baptism,  141. 

Greek  prepositions,  76 ;  rules  of  translation  of,  77 ;  their  true  mean- 
ing, 84. 

Grove,  66,  69. 

Grotius,  on  ritual  institutions,  104. 

Hall,  Robert,  on  John's  ministry,  172;   on  Christ's  baptism,  176;  on 

phrase  "  kingdom  of  God,"  279. 
Hedericus,  66,  69. 

Henry,  on  circumstance  and  substance  of  baptism,  105. 
Hesychius,  70. 
High  Church,  14,  15. 
Household  baptisms,  295,  296. 

Immersion,  not  emblematical,  89 ;  not  to  be  excluded,  96 ;  not  "  a  cross," 
97 ;  in  certain  cases,  fatal,  109 ;  in  case  of  females,  indeli- 
cate, 110;  superstitious,  209. 

Infant  baptism,  origin  of  opposition  to,  183;  ground  of,  212,  216;  va- 
rious views  of,  214;  confirmatory,  212;  as  a  seal,  245-247; 
continued  practice  of,  323 ;  history  of  opposition  to,  336 ;  ob- 
jections considered:  "an  innovation,"  326;  "no  positive  com- 
mand," &c,  352;  "repentance  and  faith  necessary,"  <fcc,  352; 
" baptism  not  substituted  for  circumcision,"  361;  "Christ  was 
baptized  in  adult  age,"  &c,  372 ;  "  our  children  are  with  us 
in  the  spiritual  church,"  372 ;  "if  die  in  infancy,  will  be  saved," 
373;  "  does  not  make  infant  a  Christian,"  373 ;  "  without  voli- 
tion of  infant,"  373;  "may  become  dissatisfied  with  baptism," 
377;  "infants  of  unbelieving  parents  ought  not  to  be  bap- 
tized," 386;  "both  parents  do  not  sanction  infant  baptism," 
36* 


426  GENERAL   INDEX. 


387;  "ought  to  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  supper,"  388;  "part 
of  Popery,"  390 ;  " serves  to  corrupt  the  church,"  391 ;  "intro- 
duces the  whole  world  into  church,"  393 ;  "  all  unbaptized  infants 
are  lost,"  393 ;  "  infants  of  believing  parents  have  no  need  of 
baptism,"  394;  benefits  of,  397-409;  should  be  administered  in 
the  church,  416. 
Israelites,  baptized  in  Red  Sea,  91. 

Jailer,  baptism  of,  122. 

Jesus,  baptism  of,  82. 

Jewett,  on  translation  of  baptizo,  131;  misrepresents  Calvin,  146;  cor- 
rected by  Dr.  Fuller,  153. 

John's  baptism,  82,  93;  did  not  abolish  Jewish  rites,  172;  not  a  Chris- 
tian sacrament,  172;  preparatory  to  Christian  baptism,  178;  form 
different  from  that  of  Christian  baptism,  174;  mode  not  immer- 
sion, 159;  ascribes  commission  to  Father,  173;  multitudes  bap- 
tized, 120;  his  disciples  rebaptized — Carson's  admission,  178. 

Knowles,  a  Baptist,  on  origin  of  Baptist  Church  in  America  and  British 
Empire,  191. 

Lightfoot,  on  Jewish  proselytism,  262;  on  infant  baptism,  265. 
Lord's  supper,  103;  frequency  and  manner  of  observance,  107. 
Luther,  on  use  of  water  in  baptism,  105. 

Maimonides,  on  proselytism,  260,  261. 

Menno,  Mennonites,  185,  338,  341 ;  practise  pouring,  156.  Menno  ad- 
mits infant  baptism  in  use  from  apostles'  times,  185,  341. 

Methodist  Discipline,  13,  22,  209. 

Miller,  Dr.  Saml.,  71 ;  on  ancient  practice  of  baptizing  naked,  (note,)  113. 

Milner,  on  antiquity  of  infant  baptism,  350 ;  time  of  origin  of  an ti-pae do- 
baptists,  136.  „. 

Mode  of  baptism,  28,  30,  33,  49;  expresses  nothing  of  moral  quality,  74; 
analogy,  88;  non-essential,  99, 103. 


Nestorians,  practise  affusion,  154. 
Novatians,  origin  of,  baptized  infants,  347. 


Oikos — oikia,  terms  not  interchangeable,  287.  Oikos,  in  sense  of 
family,  289:  oikia  includes  more,  289;  oikos  refers  specially 
to  children,  290;  infants  explicitly,  292;  in  youngest  possible 
state,  293. 

Owen,  Dr.,  71. 


GENERAL    INDEX.  427 


Ta  paidia — ta  brephe,  278. 

Passor,  66,  69. 

Paul,  St.,  baptism  of,  48 ;  mode  of  his  baptism,  128. 

Paulicians,  343 ;  never  opposed  infant  baptism,  344. 

Paterines,  343. 

Pelagius,  22. 

Pendleton,  his  unfairness,  137;  corrected  by  Ripley,  138. 

Peschito-Syriac  version,  153, 154. 

Petrobrussians,  136,  198. 

Plautus,  169. 

Plato,  39. 

Prescott,  on  ancient  practice  of  Mexicans  in  burning  dead,  (note,)  167. 

Proselyte  baptism,  260,  261,  262. 

Rebaptisit,  improper,  308,  379,  395,  405. 

Robinson,  Baptist  historian,  on  ancient  practice  of  baptizing  naked,  (note,) 

112;  on  Roman  practice  of  burning  the  dead,  (note,)  167. 
Romans,  vi.  4,  true  import  of,  168. 
Romish  Church,  14,  15,  49. 

Sacraments,  nature  of,  11. 

Scapula,  69. 

Schleusner,  69. 

Seal,  definition  of,  245. 

Selden,  on  1  Cor.  x.  1,  2. 

Silence  of  Scripture  on  infant  baptism,  300;  of  the  church,  304;  of  the 

enemies  of  the  church,  305. 
Sprinkling,  emblematical,  89,  90,  105. 
Stephanus,  69. 
Stuart,  Prof.,  62,  68;  on  baptizing  naked,  113;  on  infant  baptism,  136; 

misrepresented,  and  misrepresentation  corrected,  137,  138. 
<3uidas,  70. 
Symbols,  ancient,  in  favor  of  infant  baptism,  322. 

Tertcllian,  witness  to  fact  of  infant  baptism,  308,  310;  admitted  its 

validity,  331;  singular  opinion,  311. 
Three  thousand,  baptism  of,  114. 
Timothy,  his  circumcision  and  baptism,  253,  256. 
Titus,  circumcision  denied  him,  253,  256. 

Unfairness  of  Baptists,  134. 

Vossius,  112. 


428  GENERAL   INDEX. 


Versions  of  Bible,   defended  against  unfairness  of  Baptists — Luther's, 
150;  Peschito-Syriac,  153;  Dutch,  Danish,  and  Swedish,  155. 

Wall,  on  ancient  practice  of  baptizing  naked,  (note,)  112. 

Waldenses  and  Albigenses,  197,  340,  practised  infant  baptism,  341. 

Water,  design  of  in  Baptism,  27. 

Watson,  Richard,  72,  85,  244. 

Wayland,  Dr.,  a  Baptist,  his  concession,  198. 

Wesley,  on  mode  of  John's  baptism,  122;  misrepresented  by  Baptists,  146; 

on  close  communion,  (note,)  149. 
Whewell,  on  moral  obligation,  376. 
Willet,  Dr.  Andrew,  on  infant  baptism  as  a  seal,  247. 
Williams,  Roger,  founder  of  Baptist  church  in  America,  187;  repudiated 

his  baptism,  189,  190. 
Words,  new  import  of,  41. 


THE   END. 


8TEREOTTFZD  BT  L.  JOHNSON  AND  CO. 

PHILADELPHIA. 


**£&£ 


